Section 115 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.
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.
Doctrine of Election
‘The Doctrine of Election’ is a branch of rule of estoppel. The doctrine of election postulates that when two remedies are available for the same relief, the aggrieved party has the option to elect either of them; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan, AIR 2006 SC 577.
Effect of estoppel
(i) An estoppel cannot have the effect of conferring upon a person a legal status expressly denied to him by a statute. But where such is not the case a right may be claimed as having come into existence on the basis of estoppel and it is capable of being enforced or defended as against the person precluded from denying it; B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy (dead), AIR 2003 SC 578.
(ii) It is settled canon of law that equity follows the law. Equity would tilt in favour of law and not against violation thereof. To claim equity, the petitioner must explain previous conduct; Bhopal Singh v. Chatter Singh, AIR 2000 P&H 34.
(iii) In terms of compromise name of tenant is deleted, order reached to finality. Dispute regarding tenancy in the subsequent proceeding are estopped; Vijayabai v. Shriram Tukaram, AIR 1999 SC 431.
(iv) The party in one hand volunteered before the Arbitration for extension of time and opposed to extension of time, the plea reverse to such conduct cannot be said to be good; F.C.I. v. Dilip Kumar, AIR 1999 Cal 75.
(v) The petitioner did not raise the print that the State Transport Authority was not properly constituted at the time of consideration of her petition, thereby taking a chance of succeeding in the proceedings before it. Therefore, she is now debarred by her own conduct from raising the contention before the Court; Sushila Chand v. State Transport Authority, AIR 1999 Ori 1.
(vi) Where rights are involved estoppel may with equal justification be described both as a rule of evidence and as a rule creating or defeating rights; B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy, AIR 2003 SC 578.
The object of estoppel is to prevent fraud and secure justice between the parties by promotion of honesty and good faith. Therefore, when one person makes a misrepresentation to the other about a fact he would not be shut out by the rule of estoppel if that other person knew the true state of facts and must consequently not have been misled by the misrepresentation; Maddanappa v. Chandramma, AIR 1965 SC 1812.
Jurisdictional fact would not attract the principle of estoppel as there can be no estoppel against the statute; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin, 2008 (9) SCR 377: 2008 (8) SCC 12.
Doctrine of promissory estoppel is not applicable to ultra vires decisions; M. Deo Narain Reddy v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2004 NOC 332 (AP).
When plea of estoppel does not arise
If the statutory requirements for grant of lease are not fulfilled, the question of raising any plea of estoppel would not arise; Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia, AIR 2004 SC 1159.