Analysis of statutory provisions & judicial precedents
pertaining to Estoppel under the Law of Evidence in India
Submitted by:
Saransh Chaudhary
Group-C
PRN-21010223044
Semester VIII
Batch-2021-26
Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune
In March, 2025
Under the guidance of
Mr. Shamik Narain
Professor, Law of Evidence
Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune
1
INDEX
S no. Heading Page no.
01 INTRODUCTION 3
02 KINDS OF ESTOPPEL 3
03 ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS 5
04 WHAT IS PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL 6
05 EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF ESTOPPEL 8
06 CONCLUSION 9
07 BIBLOGRAPHY 9
2
“Alleganscontrania non estardienus – a person alleging contradictory facts
should not be heard.”
INTRODUCTION
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (here in after referred as IEA) under Chapter VIII
has placed the doctrine of Estoppel. It is based on principle that when one person
through his representation induces other upon which the other acts in the manner
he would have not acted otherwise then it would be inequitable and unjust to
allow the former perwswon who made representation to change his stand. In other
words the person making such declaration should not be allowed to deny or
repudiate the effect of his representation which caused loss or injury to a person
who acted upon it. In the case of Ganges Manufacturing Company v. Surajmull,
it was held that the provisions of Sec. 115 IEA [or 121 of Bhartiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023 (for brevity, BSA)] is in one sense a rule of evidence and is
rounded up upon a doctrine lai down in the English case of Pickard v. Sears1
where it was stated that:
“where one person by his conduct or words wilfully causes another to
believe in existence of a certain state of thing and induced him to act on that belief
so as to alter his previous position, the former is concluded from averring against
the later a different state of things than the one existing at the first time.”
In simple terms, the aim of estoppel is to avoid fraud and promote justice by
inducing honesty and good faith among parties. But if a person utters a falsehood
to another individual who is well aware of the fact and is not deceived by it,
estoppel will not operate against the person making the misstatement. In the case
of Sarad v. Gopal2 the court held that anyone who wants to take advantage of
estoppel has to establish that they had relied on the representation and had been
prejudiced by it. To apply estoppel, the person who claims it has to show that their
position was altered by the representation of the other party; otherwise, estoppel
will not operate.
KINDS OF ESTOPPEL
Coke, being the first and most learned jurist on estoppel, has had his
understanding quoted time and again in textbooks and judicial pronouncements
1
Pickard v Sears [1887] 6 Ad. & E. 469
2
Sarat v Gopal ILR 20 Cal. 296 (PC)
3
over the years. He divided estoppel into three varieties: (i) estoppel by matter of
record, (ii) estoppel by deed, and (iii) estoppel in pais. The latter two are
frequently referred to as "technical estoppels" as opposed to "acquirable
estoppels," commonly called estoppel in pais.
1. Estoppel by matter of record
In plain words, estoppel's aim is to prevent fraud and uphold justice
between parties by encouraging honesty and good faith. But if one makes
a misleading representation to a person who is already well aware of the
fact and not deceived by it, then the rule of estoppel will not operate against
the misrepresentor. In the case of Sarad v. Gopal,3 the court held that an
individual who claims the benefit of estoppel has to establish that he relied
on the representation and was prejudiced thereby. It is necessary to
establish that their position was altered by the representation of the other
party; otherwise, the doctrine of estoppel cannot be applied.
2. Estoppel by deed
Where a party expressly confirms facts by way of a deed, neither they nor
anyone claiming through them may deny those facts in the future. This
principle, however, is subject to limitations:
a) It extends only between the contracting parties and their successors in
law, and only where it bears directly upon the deed.
b) Estoppel cannot be applied to recitals or deed descriptions that are
immaterial or not intended to be legally operative.
c) Where the deed is tainted with fraud or illegality, estoppel does not
apply.
d) If a deed is capable of taking effect upon an actual interest, then it will
not be enforced estoppel-wise.
3. Estoppel in Pais
The phrase "in pais" is "in the country" or "before the public." Estoppel in
pais is used for things that are not part of a formal record or deed. In
Common Law, the original meaning of estoppel in pais was very different
3
Sarat v Gopal ILR 20 Cal. 296 (PC)
4
from what it is now. The contemporary form of estoppel in pais has evolved
completely since Coke's era.
ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS
For the estoppel doctrine to hold, the following must be present:4
1. A person must have made a representation to another.
2. The second person should have depended on such a representation.
3. Consequently, the individual upon which it was dependent would have been
damaged or at a disadvantage.
Representation
Either (i) a statement or (ii) conduct—including negligence—may be used to
make the representation that serves as the foundation for an estoppel. However,
some generalizations hold true regardless of how the depiction is constructed.
The position of the party who is persuaded to act is the main subject of the law of
estoppel. Therefore, the person who is estopped (i.e., the one making the
representation) could not be acting with the purpose to deceive and instead be
acting out of error or fear. Nevertheless, estoppel will also apply in these
situations.5
A representation can also result from a person's "omission" to do an action that is
required of them. Estoppel occurs when one party's inability to fulfill a
responsibility has deceived another party, and the duty should also be a type of
legal obligation. According to the ruling in Mercantile Bank of India Ltd. v.
Central Bank of India Ltd.,6 the receipts' failure to be stamped was enough to
establish estoppel. Estoppel by negligence is predicated on the presence of a
responsibility that the individual failed to fulfill because they were misled or
because they were part of the public.
Reliance and detriment
In order to establish estoppel, the plaintiff must have changed his mind based on
the representation and would have suffered a loss if the representor were
permitted to retract his statement. A necessary condition for actionable
4
Chhaganlal Keshavlal Mehta v Patel Narandas Haribhai (1982) 1 SCC 223
5
Surat Chunder Dey v Gopal Chander Laha (1892) 19 IA 203
6
Mercantile Bank of India Ltd. v Central Bank of India Ltd. (1938) AC 287
5
promissory estoppel is harm. Therefore, estoppel is not created by a person just
saying that he would not assert his rights unless it is meant to be acted upon and
is really acted upon.7
For instance, if a company was issued a government license to start a sawmill and
spent a lot of money in reliance on the license, the government could not
subsequently refuse to issue it because its policy had changed. Though the
government might change its policy for subsequent cases, it would be committed
to honoring the initial license.8
WHAT IS PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
Estoppel is an equity rule. Since the Courts in this nation and England recognized
the equitable theory of "Promissory Estoppel" in recent years, that rule has taken
on new dimensions.
If one party, by word or conduct, gives a promise or assurance to another with the
intention to affect their legal relationship and expecting the other to act on it, then
as soon as the latter acts in reliance thereon, the former cannot thereafter renege
on their initial legal position as if the promise was never made. Rather, they have
to take the altered legal relationship that they caused.
This doctrine, based on an equity principle that was formulated in 1877, has
developed profoundly in recent years. It is different from regular estoppel in the
sense that it does not demand the representation to be regarding a fact.
Promissory estoppel is distinguishable from estoppel under Section 115 because
it is about a promise or assurance of intention in the future, while the latter is
related to a present fact. But the Supreme Court has recognized promissory
estoppel as a doctrine that fosters justice.
Estoppel cannot be established by just promising to give a gift. To apply the
theory to a situation, there would need to be a definite and unambiguous
commitment. One of the top institutions hinted to the approval of a loan while
stating that it did not represent a commitment on the part of the organization. It
7
Dr. Sida Nitinkumar Laxmankumar Laxmanbhai v Gujarat University AIR 1991 Guj 43
8
Jyoti Das v State of Assam AIR 1990 Gau 24
6
was decided that there was no commitment to establish the promissory estoppel
theory.9
When the State exercises its authority to exempt or eliminate a product as a
taxable item, it may make a representation that would be subject to the law of
promissory estoppel. However, the individuals with the authority to carry out the
representation must make such a commitment.10
A guy ought to honor his commitments. This is especially true when the other
person is making a simple commitment with the expectation that they would
follow through on it. In the area being discussed, premises may give rise to a
separate equity from another behavior, just as a contract is distinct from a tort and
from estoppel.11
The sole necessary condition of the promissory estoppel theory is the party's
change of attitude. It is not required to provide additional evidence of harm,
disadvantage, or prejudice to the party claiming estoppel.12
Promissory Estoppel against Government
Governments and departments are now liable under the doctrine of promissory
estoppel, as they have to work within the law. In Ramnath Sahu v. Union of
India,13 the court held that promissory estoppel could not be applied to compel
the government or a public authority to perform a promise or representation
which is illegal or outside the scope of the authority of the person making it. In
the same vein, in P.V. Balakrishnan v. State of Kerala,14 the Kerala High Court
ruled that no estoppel would be applicable if the promise or sanction was outside
the legal powers of the authority.
Hence, the scope of doctrine of Promissory estoppel against the Government may
be summed up as follows:15
1. It cannot be used against the legislative functions of the state, including
changes in policy with legal force.
9
Rabisankar Choudhury v Orissa State Financial Corporation AIR 1992 Ori 93
10
Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v State of Jharkhand AIR 2005 SC 2871
11
Lord Denning: In his Article `Recent Developments in the Doctrine of Consideration', (Modern Law Review,
Vol. 15, p. 5.
12
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v Union of India AIR 1987 SC 2414
13
Ramnath Sahu v Union of India AIR 1996 All 19
14
P.V. Balakrishnan v State of Kerala AIR1994KER6
15
M.P. Mathur v DTC AIR 2007 SC 414
7
2. It cannot prevent the government from performing its legal duties or acting
according to law.
3. If a government officer acts beyond their authority, the government is not
bound by such actions.
4. If an officer acts within authority, makes a promise, and a person relies on
it to their disadvantage, the officer must uphold the promise and cannot
arbitrarily withdraw it.
5. However, the government may alter agreements due to special
circumstances like economic difficulties or state interest.
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF ESTOPPEL
No estoppel against a minor: If a minor falsely or otherwise promises to be of
legal age and persuades someone else to sign a contract with him, the minor is
not barred from using infancy as a defense in a contract-based lawsuit. He should
not, however, keep a benefit that he earned via deception, according to equity.
Where both sides are aware of the truth: Section 115 does not come into play.
Where a statement is made to a person who already knows the facts and has not
been deceived by the untrue statement, estoppel cannot be used.16
Fraud or negligence on the side of the other party: Estoppel will not apply if
the other party acts without believing the representation or if the person to whom
the representation is made is required to do more research. Similarly, estoppel
will not apply if the other party commits deception that the promisor could not
have discovered with reasonable diligence.
When both parties enter an estoppel plea: If both parties provide a case for the
application of estoppel, it is as though the two estoppels are nullified, and the
court must continue as though neither party had entered an estoppel plea.
Furthermore, the defense of estoppel might not be applicable if both parties had
labored under an error, no matter how legitimate or honest.
On a legal question, no estoppel: Only the belief in a truth is referred to as
estoppel. There cannot be estoppel against the former who later claims that the
law is different if one person expresses his view that the law is such and such and
another acts on that notion. It is impossible to avoid someone from contesting
the validity of anything (like a partition deed) for lack of legal protection (like
16
R.S. Maddanappa v Chandramma AIR 1965 SC 1812
8
registration). Section 115 requires that representations be based on facts rather
than law or opinion.17
No estoppel against laws or lawful acts: The theory of estoppel cannot be used
to override a rule of law. For instance, even if a minor has contracted by lying
about his age, he is still free to reveal his true age later. If a kid is not allowed to
reveal his true age, the rule that states that a minor lacks the capacity to enter into
contracts would be nullified. Therefore, estoppel against a statute's provisions is
not possible.
CONCLUSION
In order to guarantee fairness and equity in court processes, the theory of estoppel
is an essential instrument. By holding parties to their prior declarations or actions,
it stops them from acting unfairly. In addition to maintaining the integrity of legal
exchanges, this concept encourages dependability and trust in a variety of
contractual and interpersonal relationships. Estoppel is a crucial idea in Indian
law as its application and understanding may have a big influence on how cases
turn out.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books:
1. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence (27th edn, LexisNexis 2023).
2. V. Krishnamachari, Woodroffe and Amir Ali’s Law of Evidence (20th edn,
LexisNexis 2021).
3. Batuk Lal, Law of Evidence (23rd edn, Central Law Agency 2022).
4. Sarkar, Sarkar’s Law of Evidence (20th edn, LexisNexis 2020).
17
Union of India v K.S. Subramaninan AIR 1989 SC 662
