Estoppel
Section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with 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, t The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
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.
Illustrations.
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, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Evidence Act
IEA 115 Estoppel Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 115, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-3.pdf 2002-12-05 DATE VERIFIED. CA 2971-2972/1995. Patil/Pasayat. s.115 Evidence Act estoppel: where a person by declaration, act or omission causes another to believe a thing to be true and to act on that belief, he cannot later deny it. Silence/acquiescence while a coparcener sells and the purchaser alters his position can raise estoppel. CPC 96 and Specific Relief 34 are mentioned in the first-appeal setting — skip (96 already filled). Isolate empty IEA 115.
On this section: Successor of IEA 115 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9951). The estoppel-by-conduct rule carries to BSA 121.
-
Satyendra Kumar vs Raj Nath Dubey
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 115, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the cause of action and subject matter in a subsequent suit are entirely different (involving different properties) though between the same parties, res judicata in its strict sense is not attracted, and all issues including pure questions of law remain open for adjudication by the competent court. Pure questions of law relating to statutory interpretation and substantive rights cannot be finally determined through res judicata doctrine when applied across different properties and causes of action. A court cannot be precluded by principles of res judicata, estoppel or equity from correctly deciding a pure question of law in a subsequent suit between same parties concerning different property, as the rule of procedure cannot supersede the law of the land. Factual findings from earlier judgment operate as estoppel against parties but do not bind the court on pure legal principles.
On this section: These sections form the basis of estoppel principle; Court distinguished between estoppel (principle of evidence and equity) and res judicata; estoppel operates against parties and facts, not on pure questions of law
-
Shehammal vs Hasan Khani Rawther
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 115, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an expectant heir under Mohammedan law executes a deed of relinquishment of his future inheritance rights in exchange for consideration, and conducts himself in a manner so as to mislead the property owner regarding disposition of the property, he shall be estopped from subsequently claiming his statutory share in the inheritance upon the death of the owner, notwithstanding the doctrine of spes successionis embodied in Section 6(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and paragraph 54 of Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan Law. The applicability of such estoppel depends upon the surrounding circumstances and the whole course of conduct of which the relinquishment forms a part. Public policy considerations, derived from principles incorporated in the Indian Contract Act, 1872, support the application of estoppel doctrine to prevent unjust enrichment where an heir has accepted consideration for future relinquishment.
On this section: Estoppel principles applied to expectant heirs who conduct themselves in a manner attracting estoppel, preventing them from claiming inheritance despite doctrine of spes successionis.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… There can be no waiver unless the person who is said to have waived, is fully informed as to his rights and with full knowledge about the same, he intentionally abandons them." (emphasis supplied) 69. Estoppel has been defined under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ( pari materia to Section 121 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) as under: > "Section 115. 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 …
Questions about Section 121
What have the courts held on Section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy (05 Dec 2002) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IEA 115, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IEA 115 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9951). The estoppel-by-conduct rule carries to BSA 121. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2002 to 2016.
How do I find court cases under Section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BSA 121, section 121 BSA, section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. People searching for it also type bsa 121 to 123 and section 121 bsa 2023. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy (05 Dec 2002).
What should I read with Section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and has it changed?
It carries forward IEA 115 (Estoppel), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam come into force?
Section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, cited as BSA 121, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 26. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1128 words
- 12. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling1076 words
- 95. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement815 words
- 2. Definitions794 words
- 6. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 63. Admissibility of electronic records764 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.