Types of Estoppels under Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Types of Estoppels under Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The word ‘estoppel’ derived from the French word ‘estoupe’ that means ‘stopped’. It is named as an estoppel or conclusion because a man’s own actions will stop or closes up his mouth to claim or plead the truth.

The doctrine of estoppel means that for where one, by his words or behavior, willfully causes another in believing the existence of the state of things. It will cause him to encourage him to act on certain belief for altering his own position. The former will be concluded from averring against the latter a different state of things will exist at the same time. There are different types of estoppels. Some of them are given below:

1.      Estoppel by record:

For this type of estoppel, a person will not be permitted to dispute the facts in which the judgment against him is based. It is dealing with the (i) Ss. 11 to 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and (ii) Ss. 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act.

2.      Estoppel on benami transactions:

When the owner of property clothes a third person with the apparent ownership and a right of disposition not merely by transferring it to him, but also by admitting that the transferee has paid him the consideration for it, he will be estopped from asserting his title as against a person to whom such third party has disposed of the property and who has taken it in good faith and for value.

 3. Estoppel by deed:

Here the party will not be entered into a solemn engagement by deed in certain facts, he, nor anyone can claim through or under him and is permitted to deny such facts.

4. Estoppel by conduct:

There are cases where the estoppel will arise from agreement, distortion, or negligence. Estoppel in pais is dealt with in Ss. 115 to 117.  If a man, either by words or by conduct, has been humiliated that he consents to an act that has been done and that he cannot propose any opposition to it, although it could not have been lawfully done without his consent. He then can induce others to do that from which they otherwise might have withdrawn from doing, he cannot question the legality of the act to the prejudice of those who have so given faith to his words, or to the fair inference to be drawn from his conduct.