Vol. 12 · pages 596–600

575LAW OF EVIDENCE II. Second Element in the rule of Estoppel the intention that the Plaintiff should act upon the faith of the statement. It is not necessary that the party making the representation must have been under no mistake himself. It is not necessary that the party making the representation must have acted with the intention to milead or to deceive. 19 I. A. 203. But it is necessary that the party making the representation must have the intention that the Plaintiff should act upon the faith of the representation. How to prove intention ? Intention is used in two different senses : (1) It is used to indicate as a presumption of law. A man is presumed to intend the natural or necessary consequences of his act. (2) Intention is used to indicate a specific existing state of mind in a person. This specific state of mind must be proved as a fact like any other fact and cannot be presumed. Illus.— (1) Section 225, I. P. C. whoever intentionally offers. (2) Section 124, I. P. C whoever with the intention. Intention here is used as a presumption of law and is not used in the second sense. It is not therefore necessary to prove intention that the party should act as a specific fact. If a reasonable man would take the representation to be true, and believe it was meant that he should act on it, the requirement as to intention would be satisfied. 19 I. A. 203 (219).

576 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES III. The third element in the rule of Estoppel is that the party to whom the representation was made must have acted upon the faith of it. 1. This element is really the foundation of the law of Estoppel and explains the principle underlying it. The principle underlying the rule of Estoppel is that it must be inequitable unjust; that if one person by a repersentation made or by conduct amounting to representation has induced another to act as he would not otherwise have done, the person who made the representation should be allowed to deny or repudiate the effect of his former statement to the loss and injury of the person who acted on it. 2. The reason of the rule is that the man has acted upon it and altered his position. To amount to estoppel the statement must have been acted upon by the party to whom it was made. 14 Bom. 312. 13 Moo I.A. 585 (599). Limitation on the rule of Estoppel. 1. It cannot override the law of the land. (i) Minor—represents himself as Mojor—not estopped from proving minority. (ii) Corporation—does Acts which are ultra vires—not estopped from proving that they were beyond its power. Other distinctions between Admissions and Estoppel. 1. An admission does not prevent the party from proving that the admission is untrue. An Estoppel prevents the party from doing so. 2. An admission can be taken advantage of by any person other than the one to whom it was made. An Estoppel can be taken advantage of only by the party to whom it was made. As against a stranger he can deny its truth. 5 W. R. 209.

577LAW OF EVIDENCE 5. A. R. 209. Plaintiff alleged that he had purchased the property in the suit for Rs. 10,000. Pressed for money he subsequently mortgaged it to his mother. That he redeemed the Mortgage a year after and took possession of the property. The Defendant had obtained a decree against mother of the Plaintiff and in execution and satisfaction of the Decree had the property sold by Court Sale and purchased it Benamee and Plaintiff was ousted. The Plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of the property. The Defendant contended that Plaintiff was estopped from proving that he was the Owner because in a former suit Plaintiff had admitted that his mother was the Owner to that suit Defendant was not a party. Held there was no Estoppel. Difference between Estoppel and Conclusive Proof. 1. Estoppel can be waived by the party in whose favour it operates. But conclusive proof cannot be waived. Difference between Res Judication and Estoppel. Res Judication prevents a man avering the same thing twice over in successive litigations. Estoppel prevents a man from saying one thing at one time and the opposite at another. 36 Bom. 214. English and Indian Law of Estoppel. 1. Under the English Law Estoppels are usually classed under three heads. (i) Estoppel by Record. (ii) Estoppel by Deed. (iii) Estoppel by Conduct 2. Estoppel by Record means estoppel by the Judgement of a competent Court.

578 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (i) Estoppel by Record is recognised by the law of India. It is dealt with: (a) By the Code of Civil Procedure. Sections 11-4. (b) By the Evidence Act. Sections 40-44. 3. Estoppel by Deed. 1. Under the English Law a party to a deed cannot, in any action between him and the other party, setup the contrary of his assertion in that deed. This rule affords an illustration of the exaggerated importance of a ‘seal’ in English law. Neither sealing wax nor wafter is necessary to constitute a seal. Apparently, a smudge of ink on document purporting to be a deed is a seal if so intended, and it makes a greater importance in law than a deliberate and identifiable signature. There is no estoppel in the case of ordinary signed documents. 2. The strict technical doctrine of Estoppel by Deed cannot be said to exist in India. 3. But while the technical doctrine has no application in this country, statements in documents are, as admissions, always evidence against the parties. In some cases such a statement amounts to a mere admission of more or less evidential value according to circumstances, but not conclusive. In other cases namely those in which the other party has been induced to alter his position upon the faith of the statement contained in the document, such a statement will operate as an estoppel. In this view of the matter, an estoppel arising from a deed or other instrument is only a particular application of that estoppel by conduct or misrepresentation under Section 115. 4. An estoppel does not arise under the Evidence Act merely because a statement is contained in a deed. It can work an estoppel only when it can fall with section 115. I All. 403. II Bom. 708. 5. A Recital in a deed may be merely an admission or it may be estoppel according to circumstances.

579LAW OF EVIDENCE § Particular Estoppels. 1. Section 115 deals with Estoppels in general, sections 116 and 117 deal with particular Estoppels. 2. The distinction between Estoppels under Section 115 and Estoppels under 116-117 may be noted. (i) Estoppels under section 115 can arise between any two parties. It is not necessary that they should be related by a particular legal tie. Estoppels under 116-117 arise only between parties who are related by a particular relationship. (ii) Estoppel under 115 arises by reason of misrepresentation of facts by one party to another. Estoppel under 116, 117 arise by reason of agreement between the parties which has forged a particular relationship between them. Section 116. deals with Estoppels between (i) Landlord and Tenant and (ii) Licensee and Licensor of immoveable property. I. Landlord and Tenant. This Estoppel applies to the tenant of immoveable property. 2. This estoppel applies also to a person claiming through the tenant. In other words, if a tenant sublets his property without the knowledge or permission of the landlord, the subtenant will also be estopped from denying that the landlord had the title in the beginning, 3. This Estoppel does not ensure to the benefit of a person claiming through the landlord. There are two possible cases in which premises may be let: (i) Where the Plaintiff has let the Defendant into possession of the land. (ii) When Plaintiff is not himself the person who lets the Defendant into possession, but claims under a title derived from the person who did.