Doctrine of Estoppel: Understanding Estoppel: Maxims, Legal Principles, and Statutory Provisions

Introduction

Estoppel by representation is a shield against inconsistency, ensuring that the truth prevails where reliance has been placed on a representation. The doctrine of estoppel is rooted in three fundamental maxims that guide its application in legal contexts. First, the maxim “allegans contraria non est audiendus” translates to “one who alleges contradictory statements should not be heard”. This principle underscores that a party cannot make contradictory claims or assertions in legal proceedings. Once a person has made a definitive statement or taken a particular stance that another party has relied upon, they are precluded from later contradicting that stance to the detriment of the relying party. Second, the maxim “argumentum ad hominem” means “argument against the person”. This principle highlights that estoppel applies in a manner that directly addresses the integrity and consistency of a party’s statements or actions. In other words, it serves to prevent a party from arguing against their own previously established statements or actions, ensuring consistency and reliability in legal matters. Third, “juries est de jure” means “estoppel is of right”. This maxim emphasises that estoppel is a legal right enforced by the court to uphold fairness and justice. It reinforces that estoppel is not merely a matter of procedural convenience but a substantive right rooted in the legal obligation to maintain consistency and prevent unfair advantage derived from inconsistent claims. Together, these maxims form the foundation of the doctrine of estoppel, ensuring that individuals are held to their representations and conduct in legal contexts, thereby promoting fairness and preventing deceit.

Doctrine of promissory estoppel

In State of Jharkhand v. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd.¹, the Supreme Court discussed the doctrine of promissory estoppel, referring to Chitty on Contracts by Hugh Beale (32nd Edn., 2017). According to Chitty, for promissory estoppel to apply, there must be a legal relationship between parties, a promise or representation made by one party, an intention for the other party to rely on it, and actual reliance. The doctrine can sometimes extend to non-contractual relationships but traditionally applies to prevent a party from enforcing contractual rights. Chitty argues that applying the doctrine without an existing legal relationship, which would create new rights, contradicts its purpose, which is to limit the enforcement of pre-existing rights.

Promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation

In Brahmputra Metallics Ltd. case², the Court addressed the relationship between promissory estoppel and the doctrine of legitimate expectations. It highlighted that while the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation are often conflated in Indian law, they are distinct. As noted in M.P. Jain and S.N. Jain, Principles of Administrative Law, “legitimate expectation” encompasses a broader scope than “promissory estoppel”, despite the common interchangeable use of these terms.

In Brahmputra Metallics Ltd. case³, it was noted that in English law, the doctrine of promissory estoppel and the doctrine of legitimate expectations have developed alongside each other. The doctrine of legitimate expectations, rooted in fairness, arises when a public body leads an individual to believe they will receive a substantive benefit. As explained in R. v. North and East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan⁴, this doctrine requires courts to examine the promise’s terms, the circumstances, and the discretion involved. If a legitimate expectation of a substantive benefit is established, the Court will assess whether it would be unfair to frustrate this expectation, considering fairness against any overriding interests.

In Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar⁵, the Court clarified two important legal concepts; “issue estoppel” and “res judicata” —

1. Issue estoppel versus res judicata

(a) Res judicata: This rule prevents a court from making decisions about the same matter if a final judgment has already been made between the same parties. Once a case has been decided, the Court cannot revisit that issue. (See Thoday v. Thoday⁶)

(b) Issue estoppel: This rule stops a party from arguing about an issue that was already decided against them in a previous case. If a court has ruled on a specific issue, that party cannot raise the same issue again in a new case. This is a different kind of estoppel compared to res judicata, as it applies specifically to issues rather than the whole case.

2. Cause of action estoppel

(a) This type of estoppel prevents a party from claiming or denying the existence of a cause of action that has already been decided by a court in a previous case. If a court has already judged whether a cause of action existed or not, that decision is final, and the party cannot argue otherwise. (Refer to Thoday v. Thoday⁷)

3. Application in other cases

(a) In Staffordshire County Council v. Barber⁸, it was shown that if identical issues are raised in different cases between the same parties, the Court will handle the latter case in the same way as the previous one. This means that previous decisions on those issues are final and will be applied unless there are allegations of fraud or collusion. [See also C. (A Minor) v. Hackney London Borough Council⁹]

These concepts ensure that issues decided in court are not relitigated and provide finality to legal disputes. See NHAI v. Progressive-MVR (JV)¹⁰.

Sections 121 to 123 of the Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023¹¹ (in short “BSA”) under Chapter VIII (estoppel), sets out principles regarding estoppel (corresponding Sections 115 to 118 of the Evidence Act, 1872¹²). Section 121 of the Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023¹³ [corresponding Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872)¹⁴] deals with “estoppel”.

Section 121 of the BSA, 2023 reads as follows:

121. Estoppel.—When 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 shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.

Illustration.— A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land belongs to A, and thereby induces B to buy and pay for it. The land afterwards becomes the property of A, and A seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, he had no title. He must not be allowed to prove his want of title.

Section 121 of the Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, outlines that for the doctrine to apply, one person must make a declaration, perform an act, or fail to act in a way that intentionally causes another person to believe something is true. The person responsible for the declaration, act, or omission must have intentionally caused or permitted the other person to hold this belief, indicating a purposeful or negligent rather than accidental action. The other person must rely on this belief and take action based on it, meaning their decisions or actions were influenced by the belief. Furthermore, in any subsequent legal proceedings, the person who caused the belief cannot later deny its truth. For example, if A misleads B into believing that A owns certain land, leading B to purchase the land, A cannot later deny ownership to invalidate the sale, as A intentionally caused B to believe and act on it. In summary, Section 121 establishes that if someone intentionally induces another to believe something and act on it, they cannot later refute the truth of that belief in legal matters.

Section 122 of the Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023¹⁵, deals with estoppel related to the title of the landlord and the person in possession.

Section 122 of the BSA, 2023 reads as follows:

122. Estoppel of tenant and of licensee of person in possession.—No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy or any time thereafter, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given.

Section 122 of the Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, establishes that it applies to both tenants of immovable property and those claiming through such tenants. During the tenancy or at any time afterward, neither the tenant nor anyone claiming through them can deny that the landlord had title to the immovable property at the start of the tenancy. This provision prevents tenants and their successors from retroactively challenging the landlord’s title. Additionally, the section extends to individuals who entered the property with a licence from the person in possession; such licensees cannot dispute the title of the person who granted the licence at the time it was given. In essence, Section 122 ensures that tenants and licensees are barred from contesting the landlord’s title or the title of the person granting the licence if it was valid at the start of the tenancy or the issuance of the licence.

Section 123 of the Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023¹⁶, outlines principles of estoppel related to the acceptor of a bill of exchange and bailment or licensing.

Section 123 of the BSA, 2023 reads as follows:

123. Estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange, bailee or licensee.—No acceptor of a bill of exchange shall be permitted to deny that the drawer had authority to draw such bill or to endorse it; nor shall any bailee or licensee be permitted to deny that his bailor or licensor had, at the time when the bailment or licence commenced, authority to make such bailment or grant such licence.

Explanation 1.—The acceptor of a bill of exchange may deny that the bill was really drawn by the person by whom it purports to have been drawn.

Explanation 2.— If a bailee delivers the goods bailed to a person other than the bailor, he may prove that such person had a right to them as against the bailor.

Section 123 of the Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, outlines key principles for handling bills of exchange, bailments, and licences. It specifies that an acceptor of a bill of exchange, who agrees to pay the bill, cannot deny that the drawer had the authority to create or endorse the bill. Even if the acceptor harbours doubts, they are estopped from challenging the drawer’s authority. Similarly, a bailee, entrusted with goods, or a licensee, granted permission to use property, cannot dispute the authority of the bailor or licensor at the start of the bailment or licensing arrangement. However, the section includes provisions for exceptions: the acceptor of a bill can question the authenticity of the drawer’s signature, and a bailee can prove that a third party had a right to the bailed goods if delivered to them. In short, Section 123 ensures that parties cannot dispute the authority of others involved in bills of exchange or bailments after they have accepted or received the goods or licences.

In B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy¹⁷, the Supreme Court of India elucidated the concept of “juries est de jure” within the framework of estoppel. The Court affirmed that this maxim signifies an absolute or conclusive presumption that is irrebuttable. This form of estoppel is not merely a presumption against the entire world but specifically targets a particular party due to some action or representation made by that party. Essentially, when a fact is established under this doctrine, it is presumed to be true solely in relation to the party responsible for creating that presumption, thus preventing them from contesting it. This operates similarly to argumentum ad hominem, which means that the presumption or estoppel is directed towards the specific party’s prior assertions or conduct. By holding that juries est de jure involves an irrebuttable presumption based on prior actions or representations, the court reinforced that the doctrine serves to maintain legal consistency and integrity. It ensures that parties cannot undermine facts or truths they have established through their own conduct, thereby reinforcing the reliability of their representations in legal proceedings. This decision underscores the principle that estoppel operates to bind a party to their previous declarations or behaviours, thereby protecting fairness and preventing inconsistency in legal arguments.

In Gopal Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar¹⁸, the Supreme Court of India clarified the foundational principle of issue estoppel. The Court held that for issue estoppel to apply, the same issue of fact and law must have been conclusively determined in a prior litigation. This principle ensures that once an issue has been adjudicated and resolved in a previous case, it cannot be relitigated in subsequent proceedings between the same parties. Essentially, issue estoppel prevents parties from reasserting or contesting issues that have already been judicially decided, thereby promoting judicial efficiency and consistency.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the doctrine of estoppel is a vital legal principle that upholds fairness and consistency in judicial proceedings through its foundational maxims and applications. The maxim “allegans contraria non est audiendus” (one who alleges contradictory statements should not be heard) ensures that parties cannot make conflicting claims in litigation, thus maintaining the reliability of their statements and protecting the interests of those who have relied on their previous assertions (see Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Section 121). The principle of “argumentum ad hominem” emphasises the need for parties to stand by their previous statements or actions, preventing them from arguing against their own established positions (refer to B.L. Sreedhar case¹⁹). Moreover, “juries est de jure” (estoppel is of right) highlights that estoppel is a substantive right enforced by the Court to ensure that parties cannot deny established facts they themselves have previously asserted or relied upon (as affirmed in Gopal Prasad Sinha case²⁰).

The doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, as discussed in Brahmputra Metallics Ltd. case²¹, further illustrates how estoppel prevents parties from going back on promises that others have relied upon, provided there is a legal relationship and reliance involved. This case also clarified the distinction between promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, emphasising that while both doctrines prevent unfairness, they apply in different contexts — contractual and administrative, respectively.

The statutory structure provided by the Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, particularly Sections 121, 122, and 123 (Sections 115 to 117 of the Evidence Act, 1872) codifies these estoppel principles into law. Section 121 mandates that once a party intentionally causes another to believe a fact and act upon it, they cannot later deny that fact. Section 122 ensures that tenants and licensees cannot contest the landlord’s title once they have accepted the property under the terms of their agreement. Section 123 extends this principle to financial instruments and bailments, prohibiting challenges to the authority of those who have created or endorsed such documents.

These doctrines and statutory provisions collectively reinforce the principle that once issues have been judicially settled or promises made and relied upon, they must be upheld to preserve fairness and prevent abuse of the legal system. By ensuring that established facts and commitments are honoured, the doctrine of estoppel plays a crucial role in maintaining the integrity and reliability of legal proceedings.