Estoppel
Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 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 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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.
Illustration 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 115, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 121 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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
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: s.115 estops a person who by words, conduct or acquiescence caused another to believe a state of affairs and act on it from later denying that state of affairs (B.L. Sreedhar).
-
Satyendra Kumar vs Raj Nath Dubey
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
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.
-
… modification of the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and attempting to sustain the modification based on contentions founded on the principle of estoppel and relying upon Section 51 of the TP Act. Conceptually, the underlying principles in Section 51, TP Act and the principle of estoppel under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are converse and cannot co-exist. Section 51 of the TP Act reads thus: - " 51. Improvements made by bona fide holders under defective titles. —When the transferee of immoveable property makes any improvement on the property, believing in good faith that he is absolutely entitled …
-
… Janki Kuar [AIR 1924 PC 213 : 51 IA 326] (AIR at p. 214) with regard to estoppel, it was stated: "There is no peculiarity in the law of India as distinguished from that of England which would justify such an application. The law of India is compendiously set forth in Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, Act 1 of 1872. It will save a long statement by simply stating that section, which is as follows: '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 …
-
… The plaintiffs' right over the property is restricted to the rights which they obtained as per partition deed. In both the agreement and the partition deeds the parties duly accepted the conditions in the sale deeds. The plaintiffs are estopped under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act to claim that a part of the document is not binding on them. As per the terms and conditions contained in the agreement the plaintiffs have no right to claim any right over the second floor of the building. As per the agreement the second and third parties will have full right to make …
Questions about Section 115
What have the courts held on Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act?
B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy (05 Dec 2002) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.115 estops a person who by words, conduct or acquiescence caused another to believe a state of affairs and act on it from later denying that state of affairs (B.L. Sreedhar). 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 115 of the Indian Evidence Act?
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: IEA 115, section 115 IEA, section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act. 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 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 121 (Estoppel), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 115, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.