DECIDED 23/10/2018

Estoppel  - Estoppel on the basis of admission in a previous suit  -  It is no doubt true that an admission is the best piece of evidence - However, an admission can always be explained, unless such an admission gives rise to the principle of estoppel - Basic requirement for attracting the principle of estoppel, is that the person to whom the representation has been made must have acted on the basis of such representation, and particularly to his own detriment – As the defendant on the basis of the admission (wrong statement) made by plaintiff in previous suit (where both were codefendants) did not act to his detriment, the question of estoppel does not arise.   

Held,

Father of the plaintiff and the father of the defendant  were owners to the extent of 50% . Admission of the father of the plaintiffs in the pleadings and in his deposition regarding the title of the father of the defendant in a previous suit, where both of them were co defendants, that the property in entirety was owned by the father of the Defendant. It is no doubt true that an admission is the best piece of evidence. However, an admission can always be explained, unless such an admission gives rise to the principle of estoppel. The principle of estoppel could have arisen if the father of the defendant had acted to his detriment on the basis of the representation made by the plaintiffs’ father as the basic requirement for attracting the principle of estoppel, is that the person to whom the representation has been made must have acted on the basis of such representation, and particularly to his own detriment. In the matter on hand, the father of the defendant knew about the correct position on facts and he very well knew that he was the owner to the extent of 50% of the property only, and as he did not act to his detriment, the question of estoppel does not arise.  

PLR Supreme Court e@journal

 Annual subscription Rs. 1000/-

5 UPDATES A WEEK  


  1. Estoppel - No estoppel can operate against statute and, as afore-stated, the undertaking, if any, submitted by the petitioner contrary to the provisions of the framed thereunder, cannot work against the rights and liabilities accruing to the petitioner under the 1973 Act and the Haryana Municipal (Charging of Composition Fee for Regularisation of unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2003 - Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (24 of 1973). (174) PLR
  2. Estoppel - The doctrine he is drawing under the transaction, between him and the appellant - It is trite that the doctrine of estoppel is steeped in the principles of equity and good conscience - Equity will not allow a person to say one thing at one time and the opposite of it another time - It would estop him from denying his previous assertion, act, conduct or representation to say something contrary to what was implied in the transaction under which he obtained the benefit of being let in possession of the property to be enjoyed by him as a  tenant - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949) S. 13-B - Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) S. 13-B. (S.C.)(176) PLR 

 

PLR Supreme Court e@journal

 Annual subscription Rs. 1000/-

5 UPDATES A WEEK