Vol. 12 · pages 601–605

580 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES This section applies to the first case and estops the tenant from denying the Landlord’s title. It does not apply in the second case where the title of the landlord is derivative i.e. by sale, lease or inheritance so that when the Plaintiff claims by a derivative title, the defendant is not estopped from showing that the title is not in the Plaintiff but in some other person. The tenant can show that he has no derivative title. This is the effect of the absence of the words “claiming through the landlord”. This estoppel applies to a denial of title at the beginning of the tenancy, so that a tenant can show that his landlord’s title has expired or is determined. In such a case he does not dispute the title, but confesses and avoids it by a matter ex-post facto. Justice requires that the tenant should be permitted to raise this plea, for, a tenant is liable to the person who has the real title and may be faced to make payment to him, and it would be unjust if, being so liable, he could not show the expiry or determination of his landlord’s title as a defence. 4. The Scope of the Estoppel. A tenant or his representative will not be permitted to deny that on the day on which his tenancy commenced, the landlord who granted the tenancy had title to the property. 5. This Estoppel binds the tenant only so long as the tenancy continues. Once the tenancy has ceased he is free to deny that his landlord had any title even on the day on which tenancy commenced. II. Licensee and Licensor of immovable property. 1. The rule is the same as a licensee, namely, that the licensor had title to such possession at the time when such license was given. 2. Difference between a tenant and a licensee. License means permission given by one man to another to do some act, which without such permission it would be unlawful for him to do. It is a personal right, and is not transferable, but dies with the man to whom it is given. It can as a rule be revoked by the Licensor unless the licensee has paid money for it.

581LAW OF EVIDENCE Tenancy is an interest in land and is transferable and heritable. Section 117 deals with (1) Estoppel of acceptor of a Bill of Exchange. (2) Estoppel of a Bailee. (3) Estoppel of a Licensee. (1) The Estoppel with regard the Acceptor is to the effect that he should not be permitted to deny that the drawer had an authority to draw the Bill or to endorse it. Reason for this rule is to be found in the Agreement between the Acceptor and the holder of the Bill. What does the agreement of acceptance impost: (1) That he will pay the payee or the holder. (2) That if he fails to pay the drawer will pay. What does it mean when he says that the Drawer will pay ? It means that the drawer had the authority and capacity to bind himself. The payee took it on the basis of this agreement. The acceptor, therefore, is not permitted to deny this agreement. Under Explanation I, he is permitted to deny that the signature of the drawer is a forgery. This is contrary to English Law. (2) & (3) Estoppel in respect of a Bailee and Licensee. They cannot deny the authority of the bailor to make the bailment or of the licensor to grant such a license at the time when such bailment or license commenced. § Matters stated without prejudice. 1. Under this head fall certain classes of admissions made by a party. 2. If the admission is made under certain circumstances mentioned in Section 23, it cannot be proved against the party who made it.

582 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES 3. What are those circumstances ? (1) If it is made on condition that evidence of it is not to be given (a) Condition may be express or (b) Condition may be implied from the Conduct of the parties. (2) Agreement may be verbal or in writing. 4. The application of Section 23. (1) It applies to Civil cases only. The rule does not extend to criminal cases. (2) By Judicial interpretation the application of the Section has been confined to admissions made in the course of the negotiations in the same. The mere fact that a document is stated to have been written “Without Prejudice” will not exclude it. The rule which excludes documents marked “Without Prejudice” has no application unless some person is in dispute or negotiations with another and terms are offered for the settlement of the dispute or negotiation. 23 Bom. 177 (180). Explanation— This section does not apply where a person is compellable to answer. § Matters which are irrelevant. 1. The law of Evidence does not state what matters are irrelevant. 2. It proceeds to state what matters are relevant and thus excludes those that are not relevant. 3. It is objected that the rules of relevancy are of no use. 4. There are two problems a Judge is faced with (i) Whether and how far he ought to believe what the witness says ?

583LAW OF EVIDENCE (ii) What inference a Judge ought to draw from the facts which he believes to have been proved ? In every judicial proceedings there are two essential questions—Is this true ? and if it is true, what then ? 5. Rules of relevancy throw no light on either of them and persons who are absolutely ignorant of these rules may give a better answer. 6. Answer to the objections. (i) Men reason and reason well even without the study of Logic. But it does not follow that we should study Logic. (ii) The rules of relevancy out the flood of irrelevant gossip and collateral questions which are sufficient to comprise the strongest head and distract the most attentive mind. I. Cardinal rule of relevancy is that you can prove a fact and not opinion. Facts fall into two classes: Those can and those which cannot be perceived by the senses. Those which cannot be perceived by the senses are : (1) Intention, (2) Fraud (3) Good faith and (4) Knowledge. § Matter of which Proof is allowed by Law. 1. Facts in Issue. 3, 5, 12. 2. Facts relevent to Facts in Issue. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13-16, 52-58 45-51. 3. Facts which are consistent with facts in Issue or with Relevant Facts or which show the probability of a Fact in Issue and Relevant Fact. 34-39-46. Note—31-32 will go under direct evidence as exceptions. 4. Facts which are inconsistent with 11(1). Facts in Issue or with Relevant Facts. 17-31. or which show the improbability of a Fact in Issue or Relevant Fact. 41 -44,46.

584 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES § Facts in Issue. Section 3. There are two Requisites of a fact in issue : (1) It is a necessary fact. A Fact in Issue is a fact which is the foundation of right claimed or of the liability which is sought to be imposed by one party against or upon another party. A fact in issue is a fact the proof of which is necessary for the claim being granted or the liability being imposed. Illus— (1) Supposing the inquiry to be whether A is entitled to succeed to B’s property as his son. The following facts would be necessary facts : (a) Whether A is the son of B. (b) Whether B is dead. (c) Whether the property belongs to B. They are necessary facts because unless they are proved A’s claim to succeed cannot be granted. They are the foundation of his claim. Illus— (2) Supposing the inquiry is Whether A caused the death of B. The following facts would be necessary facts : (i) Whether A caused the death of B. (ii) Whether A had the intention to cause death. 2. Every necessary fact is not a fact in issue. A necessary fact whether it is asserted and denied becomes a fact in issue. In Illus. 1 and 2 if any necessary fact is not denied it would base to be a fact in issue. 3. A fact in issue is, therefore, a necessary fact which is in dispute between the two parties.