Estoppel**

Definition and Principle of Estoppel (Section 116 BSA)

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) addresses the principle of estoppel, which prevents a person from asserting a fact or a right that is contrary to their previous actions or statements.

One person is precluded from denying a fact which he has led another to believe

• Principle of Estoppel: Estoppel is a rule of evidence that prevents a person from asserting a fact or a right that is inconsistent with a previous position taken by that person, particularly when another person has relied on that previous position.

• Section 116 BSA: While Section 116 of the BSA is likely to deal with estoppel, the core principle articulated is that where one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative in interest shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or such representative in interest, to deny the truth of that thing.

• Essence: The fundamental idea is to prevent injustice and ensure consistency. It stops someone from going back on their word or conduct when it would be unfair to someone else who has acted upon it.

Conditions for Estoppel

For the principle of estoppel to apply, certain conditions must be met:

• Representation: There must be a clear and unambiguous representation of fact (by words, conduct, or omission) made by one party (the representor).

• Intention or Negligence: The representation must be made either intentionally or due to negligence, causing the other party to believe in its truth.

• Reliance: The other party (the representee) must have believed the representation to be true and must have acted upon it.

• Detriment: The representee must have acted on the representation to their detriment or prejudice, meaning they would suffer loss if the representor were allowed to go back on their representation.

• Unfairness: It must be unfair or unjust to allow the representor to deny the truth of the representation.

Types of Estoppel

Estoppel can arise in various forms, based on the nature of the representation or the legal context.

Estoppel by Record

• Principle: Arises from the judgments or judicial records of competent courts. Parties are generally estopped from re-litigating issues that have already been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction (res judicata), or from denying the facts stated in a judicial record.

• Example: A final judgment in a civil suit is conclusive regarding the matters decided, and the parties cannot re-open those matters in subsequent proceedings.

Estoppel by Deed

• Principle: Arises from the solemn act of executing a deed (a legal document). A party to a deed is generally estopped from denying the truth of statements made in the deed, which were material to the transaction.

• Example: If a deed of sale recites that the vendor received the sale consideration, the vendor is generally estopped from denying that they received the money.

Estoppel in Pais (Equitable Estoppel)

• Principle: Arises from the conduct, acts, or omissions of the parties. This is the most common type and is based on the principle that a person should not be allowed to go back on what they have led another to believe, and what that other person has acted upon to their detriment.

• Section 116 BSA: This section directly relates to estoppel in pais, particularly concerning tenants and licensees, and the general principle of representation by conduct.

• Example: If a landlord allows a tenant to believe that certain repairs are not required, and the tenant acts upon this belief, the landlord may be estopped from later demanding those repairs.

Estoppel in Civil and Criminal Proceedings

• Civil Proceedings: The principle of estoppel is extensively applied in civil cases to promote fairness, consistency, and finality in litigation. The BSA's definition of admission in Section 20, and the principle of estoppel it mentions, primarily apply to civil matters.

• Criminal Proceedings: While the strict rules of estoppel as applied in civil law are generally not applied in criminal proceedings, the underlying principle of fairness and preventing injustice is still relevant. For instance, a person cannot be tried twice for the same offence (double jeopardy). Also, if the prosecution makes a statement that leads the accused to believe a certain fact, it might influence how the case proceeds, though it may not operate as a strict legal estoppel in the same way as in civil law. However, confessions obtained through inducement or threat are rendered irrelevant, preventing coerced admissions from being used.