The Doctrine of Estoppel in Indian Evidence Act

By Aditi Utkarsha

Introduction

An estoppel is a principle applied to prevent parties in a court from denying facts that they have previously admitted. It stops them from going back on their words and giving contradictory claims.

To apply the doctrine of estoppel there needs to be certain preconditions. Firstly, a person must communicate some information to another. This communication is known as a “representation.” This information should be about real facts that are at that time true, not just interpretations of the law. The idea is to share details about things that exist or events that have happened.

The person making the representation must present it in a way that convinces the other person it’s true. This means using language or actions that lead the recipient to genuinely believe in the accuracy of the information being shared. For the conditions to be met, the person who receives this information not only has to believe it but must also act based on that belief and such an act must lead to suffering or loss. The loss may be of any nature and must be the consequence of the representation.

The essence of this doctrine is that a person cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. This means that a person cannot accept parts of a judgment favourable to their interests and reject those that are not. In the case of Purshottam v. Bhagwat Sharan[1], the court explained the intricacies of estoppel through the principles of approbate and reprobate and further elaborated this doctrine.

Estoppel and Res Judicata

While mentioning the doctrine of estoppel, people often confuse it with the Latin maxim of res judicata. Both terms may seem quite similar on the surface level, but they are vastly different from each other.

Res judicata, which translates to “a thing adjudicated,” is a legal principle that arises when a court has given a final decision on a matter. Once a court has conclusively determined an issue, the same parties are generally barred from relitigating that particular matter in subsequent legal proceedings. This doctrine is primarily for the prevention of a multiplicity of suits. It ensures that legal disputes are resolved conclusively and prevents parties from endlessly rehashing the same issues before the courts.

Estoppel, on the other hand, is born out of the actions and representations of the parties involved. It operates on the doctrine of equity, holding that a person who induces another to change their position to their detriment cannot subsequently take advantage of that alteration. In simpler terms, estoppel prevents a party from asserting a position contrary to their prior conduct or representations. This doctrine is designed to promote fairness and prevent the injustice that could arise if parties were allowed to benefit from their own inconsistent behavior.

Res judicata prohibits the re-litigation of issues already conclusively determined by a court, while estoppel prevents a party from taking inconsistent positions in different proceedings. Estoppel arises from the equitable principle that a party should not benefit from their own contradictory actions or representations. While res judicata operates on the basis of judicial authority, estoppel is based on the notions of fairness and equity.

Estoppel under The Indian Evidence Act

In the case of Jaikaran Singh v. Sita Ram Aggarwala,[2] the court provided significant insights into the doctrine of estoppel. A crucial point emerging from this case is the interpretation of Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act. Contrary to considering this section as an exhaustive compilation of estoppel rules, the court held that its scope is not confined solely to its explicit provisions.

In essence, Section 115 serves as a foundation for estoppel principles, but it does not represent an exhaustive list of all possible scenarios Furthermore, the court recognized the possibility of other estoppel rules that could be applicable in India, going beyond the specific provisions articulated in Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The doctrine of estoppel is based on the legal maxim “Allegens contraria nonest audiendus” which means that a person alleging to the contrary is not to be heard. It means that a forum will not entertain contradictory claims by the same party or claims that are contradictory to the party’s prior conduct in a given case.

In the Indian Evidence Act, sections 40 to 43 deal with the doctrine of estoppel. Such type of estoppel is also known as estoppel by a matter of record or quasi-record. It is quite similar to the principle of res judicata, but as explained earlier, there are differences present between the two.

This legal doctrine pertains to the utilization of records as evidence in legal proceedings, specifically referring to a court’s record as a matter of record. In essence, estoppel by records involves relying on the official documentation maintained by the court during judicial proceedings.

Section 40 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872states that the existence of any judgment, order, or decree which by law prevents any courts from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial is a relevant fact when the question is whether such court ought to take cognizance of such suit, or to hold such trial. It deals with the principle of res judicata in civil cases or autre fois acquit or autre fois convict, in criminal cases.[3]

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, autre fois acquit translates to a defendant’s plea stating that he or she has already been tried for and acquitted of the same offense.[4] The term autre fois convict on the other hand translates to a defendant’s plea stating that he or she has already been tried for and convicted of the same offense.[5]

This section states that the existence of any judgment, order, or decree that has been previously given by a competent court is relevant for preventing a party from re-litigating the same issue in a subsequent suit or trial. It establishes the principle of res judicata, which means that a matter already adjudicated upon by a competent court cannot be re-agitated between the same parties.

Section 41 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872states that a final judgment, order, or decree of a competent court, in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty, or insolvency jurisdiction, which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing, not as against any specified person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence of any such legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant.[6]

Section 42 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872deals with admissions made by a party to a civil suit. Any statement made by a party, whether oral or in writing, which expressly or impliedly admits any fact in issue or relevant fact, is relevant. Such admissions are binding on the party making them and cannot be later denied or contradicted.

Section 43 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872is a residual provision that deals with the admission of judgments, orders, or decrees of courts other than those covered in sections 40 to 42 when they relate to matters of public nature, customs, and matters of general interest.

These sections collectively form the doctrine of estoppel in the Indian Evidence Act, preventing parties from denying or contradicting their previous statements or the judgments/orders of competent courts in subsequent legal proceedings.

---

[1] Purshottam v. Bhagwat Sharan , MANU/MP/0524/2002.

[2] Jaikaran Singh v. Sita Ram Agarwala, sAIR 1974 P 364.

[3]ADVOCATE KHOJ, Report No. 185, https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/lawreports/evidenceact1872/50.php?Title=Review%20of%20the%20Indian%20Evidence%20Act,%201872&STitle=Sections%2040%20to%2044:%20Judgments%20of%20Courts%20of%20Justice,%20when%20relevant#:~:text=It%20reads%20as%20follows%3A,or%20to%20hold%20such%20trial.%22

[4] Merriam-Webster, Autrefois acquit, https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/autrefois%20acquit#:~:text=au%C2%B7%E2%80%8Btre%C2%B7%E2%80%8Bfois,acquitted%20of%20the%20same%20offense.

[5] Merriam-Webster, Autrefois convict, https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/autrefois%20convict#:~:text=%3A%20a%20defendant’s%20plea%20stating%20that,convicted%20of%20the%20same%20offense

[6] The Indian Evidence Act, §41, Act No. 1 of 1872, Acts of Parliament (India).