The Principle of Estoppel was first time used in the case of “Pickard v. Sears[i] Court held that “a person by his words or any conduct induces to another person to believe a fact and its subsequently acts according to that belief or to alter his previous position, the accused is barred from later changing his position”.

Estoppel deals with in Section 115 to 117 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 and Section 115 of Indian Evidence Act talks about the general principle of estoppel by the conduct, Meanwhile Section 116 and 117 are contains instance of estoppel by conduct. The following are the example of Estoppel in other Acts pf our country – Section 49 of the Registration Act 1908, Section 53,27,41,43,49 of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 24 & 93 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, Section 18 of the Specific Relief Act & Section 28 of the Partnership Act NAT.

KIND OF ESTOPPEL[ii]

1. Estoppel by Record

The Estoppel deals with the section 11-14 of CPC and Section 40- 44 Of Indian Evidence Act. It is basically concerned with the effect parts of some Judgment on the behalf of records. When the party adduced the record in the present case and they also decided to estoppel the reopen the case. This Principle is not applicable in India but we are generally using the principle of Res Judicate. We have to keep in mind that an appeal is taken into consideration that the case to be a continuation and it will not fall under the CPC (Res- judicata).

2. Estoppel by Deed

When one party has to claim to another party has entered into an engagement by a deed with some certain facts. The estoppel by deed only can be applied between the parties and privies. This principle is not applying to the non- binding and irrelevant of the matter in the case. The most important thing we must need to keep in mind that if a deed is tainted or come under the fraud, no estoppel can arise from it.

3. Estoppel by Pais or Conduct

A man with his words or conduct to believe that another person is given the same facts and act had been aware of his misrepresentation. The principle of estoppels prohibits the man from denying the existence of the same facts. Estoppel by Pais applies, when an agreement, contract act, or any conduct of misrepresenting negligence on the part of the party, and it changes the position of facts by his conduct of the other party.

4. Estoppel by silence or acquiescence-

In the case of Delhi University v. Ashok Kumar[iii] Court held that Where there is an inherent duty of one person to inform the other person of accurate facts and circumstances but remains silent, his failure to discharge this duty will work as estoppels against him. In a scenario there was no duty for the person to speak, no estoppel can be imposed. In the case of Syed Abdul Qadir v. Ramareddy, an ostensible owner (SECTION 41 of TPA deals with Transfer by ostensible owner) sold a property. The person who was the real owner of the land remain silent. His silent acceptance was regarded as an Estoppel.

In the case of Power Control & Appliances Co. v. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd[iv] where the manufacture allowed the use of his registered trade for a long period of time without protest, this amounts to acquiescence, attracting the doctrine of acquiescence.
When a person changes his religion on the occasion of marriage, he will be bound by that new religion because the estoppel applies.

5. Equitable Estoppel

The Evidence Act is not exhaustive of the rules of estoppel. Thus, although S. 116 only deals with the estoppel that arises against a tenant or licensee, a similar estoppel has been held to arise against a mortgagee, an executor, a legatee, a trustee, or an assignee of property, precluding him from denying the title of the mortgagor, the testator, the author of the trust, or the assignor, as the case may be.

Further, S. 116 is not exhaustive of all instances of estoppel as between landlord and tenant. Thus, there are cases of estoppel which, though not within the terms of Ss. 115 to 117 of the Evidence Act, are recognised instances of estoppel. Estoppels which are not covered by the Evidence Act may be termed equitable estoppel.

6. Estoppel by negligence

This type of estoppel enables a party, as against some other party, to claim a right of property which in fact he does not possess. Such estoppel is described as estoppel by negligence or by conduct or representation or by a holding out of ostensible authority. Such estoppel is based on the existence of a duty which the person estopped is owing to the person led into the wrong belief or to the general public of whom the person is one. (Mercantile Bank. Central Bank, (A.I.R, 1938 Privy Council, 52)

7. Promissory Estoppel

The Promissory estoppel binds the party by his promise or with the faith on the other party. the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not against those agreements, which has created contravention of the law.

In the case of LML Ltd. V State of Utter Pradesh[v], Court observed that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies only the conduct of one party to another party to make some changes as if the said represented will be acted upon and provides for a cause of action it need not be necessary to take as a defence.
Section. 115 deals with estoppel by representation by act or conduct, and Section. 116 and section 117 deal with estoppel by agreement or contract.