Start learning 50% faster. Sign in now
The principle of doctrine of Estoppel is stated under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1892. Estoppel is based on the principle that it would unjust, if a person intentionally by conduct or in any other manner has induced other person to believe and act upon such a representation, neither he or those representing can in a subsequent Court proceedings deny the truth. The accused does through omission, act or declaration. The term Estoppel is derived from the maxium, “allegans contraria non est audiendus” which implies a person alleging contradictory facts should not be heard, and is the species of presumptio juris et de jure, wherein the fact presumed is taken to be true against the party stating the same. Principle of Estoppel was established in the case of Pickar v. Sears, wherein a person by his words or conducts induces to another person to believe a fact and subsequently acts according to that belief or to alter his previous position, the accused is barred from later changing his position. The doctrine established in this section is not a rule of equity rather rule of evidence, applied in the Court of law In this case, the plaintiff leased a property to a third party, but the lease was subsequently transferred to the defendant. The plaintiff later sought to evict the defendant from the property, claiming that the lease had been obtained through fraud. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was estopped from denying the validity of the lease, as the plaintiff had previously accepted rent payments from the defendant without objection. The court held that the plaintiff was indeed estopped from denying the validity of the lease, as the plaintiff's acceptance of rent payments amounted to a representation that the lease was valid, and the defendant had relied on this representation to their detriment. The court established the principle of estoppel, which has since become a fundamental principle of common law, and is now recognized in many legal systems around the world.
‘A’ can do a piece of work in 15 days. ‘B’ can do 70% of the same work in 20 days. If they work together for the entire time and...
A and B together can complete a piece of work in 32 days while A alone can complete 40% of the work in 32 days. Find the time taken by B to compl...
Two workers A and B were put to some work. If A worked alone, he would have taken 8 hours more than when both A and B had worked together. If B worked a...
'Sumit' can complete (3/8) of a job in 24 days, where as 'Sumit' and 'Tarun' together can finish it in 16 days. Calculate the time 'Tarun' needs to comp...
A’ and ‘B’ together can complete a work in 10 days while ‘A’ takes 18 days to complete the same work alone. If ‘C’ is 25% more efficient t...
It is given that 40% of the work completed by Lokesh is equal to 30% of the work completed by Meena. If Lokesh alone can complete the entire work in 28 ...
Tony has 3 sons – Harry, Peter and Murphy. Harry and Peter can complete the work in 24 days and 36 days respectively. In how many days Murphy will...
Person A can complete a certain task in 20 days, while person B can finish the same task in x days. Together, they can complete the task in 12 days. Det...
‘A’ and ‘B’ can do a piece of work in 20 days and 30 days, respectively. If they started the work together and worked on it for 7 days, then fin...
Mukta takes 8 hours less than Raj to complete the work, and Mukta also takes 32 hours less than Bheem to complete the same work. If Raj and Bheem start ...