Estoppel, admission & confession

1. Names: RONIT VINOD RATHOD
SAI RAJENDRA KADAM
YASHPAL FULSINGH PUROHIT
DHRUV DINESHBHAI PARVADIYA
Course: BACHELOR OF COMMERCE AND BACHELOR OF LEGISLATIVE LAW HONOURS,
8th SEMESTER, ACADEMIC YEAR 2017 - 2022.
Subject: Law Of Evidence.
Topic of Presentation: Estoppel, Admission & Confession.
Date of Submission:

2. CONTENTS OF THE TOPIC
ESTOPPEL: -
1. Introduction.
2. Under Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
3. Section 115 – Estoppel.
a) Case Laws.
b) Condition for application of doctrine of estoppel.
c) Types of estoppel.
4. Section 116 – Estoppel of tenants and licensee of person in
possession.
5. Section 117 – Estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange, licensee
or bailee.
ADMSSION: -
1. Introduction
2. Difference between Relevancy and Admissibility.
3. Persons whose admissions are relevant.
4. Section - 21
CONFESSION
1. Introduction
2. Case Laws
3. When confession is irrelevant
4. Confession to police
5. Confession in further discovery of facts.
6. Section 29 & 30

3. Doctrine Of Estoppel
• "Estoppel may be defined as disability whereby a party is precluded from alleging or
proving in legal proceedings, that a fact is otherwise than it has been made to appear by the
mattergivingrisetothatdisability.“
• The term "Estoppel," comes from an old-French word- "Estoupail" (or variation), which
means "stopper plug", referring to placing a brake on the imbalance of the situation. The
rationalebehindestoppelistopreventinjusticeowingtofraudorinconsistency.
Introduction

4. • Dealt from Section 115 to 117 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Doctrine of Estoppel is that
provision which prohibits a person from giving false evidence by preventing them from
makingcontradictingstatementsina CourtofLaw.
• The objective of this doctrine is to avert the commission of fraud by one person against
another person. This doctrine holds a person accountable for false representations made by
him,eitherthroughhiswordsorthroughhisconduct.
Under Indian Evidence Act,
1872

5. • Thissectionsaysthatwhenone personhasbyhis,
a) Declaration
b) Act
c) Omission,
intentionallycausedorpermittedanotherperson,
i. To believe a thingtobetrue,and
ii. To actuponsuchbelief,
then neither he nor his representative shall be allowed to deny the truth of that thing in
anysuitorproceedingbetweenhimselfand suchpersonorhisrepresentative.
SECTION - 115
Estoppel

6. • This section is founded upon the doctrine laid down in Pickard v. Sears, namely, that
where a person “by his words or conduct wilfully” causes another to believe the existence of
a certain state of things, and induces him to act on that belief. So as to alter his own
previous position, the former is concluded from averring against the latter a different state
ofthingsasexistingatthesame time.”
• It precludes a person from denying the truth of some statement previously made by
himself.
Pickard v. Sears [1837] 6 Ad & El 469
“Allegans contraria non est audiendus” - He is not to be heard who alleges things contradictory to
each other.

7. Commissioners of the Municipality of Malacca v Sinniah [1974] 1 MLJ 77
• The plaintiff is the Commissioner of the Municipality of the Town and Fort of Malacca. The Municipality are the owners of premises
known as Quarters No. 116 Jalan Bukit China. Malacca (hereinafter referred to as the quarters). The defendant was an employee of the
plaintiff and the said quarters were allotted (given) to him by reason of his employment with the Municipality. The defendant joined
servicewiththeMunicipalityon1July1938.Accordingtotherecord ofhisservice,hewastwentyfiveyearsofageatthattime.Hecould
serve the Municipality up to the age of fifty five. If he was twenty five in 1938, he must have been born in 1913 which meant that he
could remain in the employment of the Municipality only up to 1968. The only plea taken up in the defence was that as the defendant
was born in1922, hecould notbe evicted, that his retirementwas wrongful, thathewas entitled toremain inoccupation of the quarters
untilhereaches theageoffiftyfive.
Held: The defendant having failed to discharge the onus cast on him, the defendant was “estopped” from denying that he was twenty-five
years of age at the time of his employment as stated in the record of service. The judge states “again the defendant is “estopped” from
denyinghe wastwenty-five atthetimeof hisemployment. Hewasemployed onthe faithinducedbyhimthathewastwenty-five.”

8. • EstoppelwhenappliedtoEducational Institutions
Thestudenttook admissioninalawcollegeandsuccessfully complete histwo years.Inhisfinalyear
universityobjectedfrom releasinghisresultofthepreandintermediateexaminationontheground thathe
isnoteligibletodoso.TheStudenthadsubmittedalltherequireddocuments atthe timeof admission and
alsohas obtainedthecardforwritinghisfinalexamination.Thecourt declaredthattheuniversitywould
beestopped from doingso,i.e.declaringtheresultofthatstudent.
Sanatan Gauda v. Bharampur University

9. 1. The representationmustbe made
a) byonepersontoanotherperson.
b) astofactsand notas tothelaw.
c) astoanexistingfact.
d) inamannerwhichmakestheotherpersonbelieve thatitistrue.
2. Thepersontowhomtherepresentation
a) isbeingmade mustactuponthatbelief.
b) wouldbe madeshouldsuffera lossbysuchrepresentation.
Conditions for application of
Doctrine of Estoppel

10. 1. EstoppelbyPais
2. Estoppelbyelection
3. Equitableestoppel
4. Estoppelbynegligence
5. EstoppelbyBenami Transaction
Few Types of Estoppel
UnderCodeof CriminalProcedure, 1973
SECTION300 -ISSUE ESTOPPEL
UnderCodeof CivilProcedure, 1908
SECTION11-RESJUDICATA
UnderIndianContractAct,1872
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
ESTOPPELBYRECORD

11. SECTION - 116
Estoppel of tenants and of licensee of person in
possession.
Tenant-landlord relationship
A relationship between a tenant and a landlord can be created either by written contract or verbal contract. The beginning
of thetenancycanbemarkedbythetakingof possession of theland,orbythepayment of rent,orother circumstances.
If X leases his land to Y and Y takes the possession and starts paying the rent and later on X sales the land to Z, then Y can
makehispayment toZ.Here,YandZhaveformed thetenant-landlord relationship.
Scope of section 116
Itisconcerned withthose estoppels whichoccurs between:
• Tenantandhislandlord
• Licensorandlicensee
Title ofthelandlord cannotbedenied
Once a tenant enters into a relationship of landlord and tenant, receives the possession of the property and finally enters
into the premise, during the period of such possession may deny to things or course of action by the landlord which is
against to what was mentioned in the agreement. A tenant in no case claim that the landlord has no title over the
property.

12. InMotiLalv.YarMd,the judgesaidthatthetenantcannotsaythatthelandlordhasnomoreinterestinthe property
when the landlord filed a suit for default payment and ejectment. It is only after leaving the possession can the holding
of titlebythelandlordbequestioned asmentioned inSurajBaliRamv.DhaniRam.
In Sri S.K. Sharma v. Mahesh Kumar Verma, where defendant upon attaining a higher post was allotted a premise by
the railway company. In the case, it was said that even when it was not known whether the land belonged to the
railwaycompany or not, theofficer willhaveto evacuatethepremises afterretirement.
Canlandlord pleadestoppel
Inthefollowingsituations, thelandlordcanpleadestoppel:
•When the tenancy itself stands disputed then the tenant can challenge the landlord’s title onthe property.The tenant
wouldnot beestopped fromdoingso.
•Incaseswherethetenancyhasbeenmoved byfraud,coercion, misrepresentation ormistake.
If no such circumstances occur than the tenants would be restricted by the doctrine of estoppel. However, the tenants
arealwaysatlibertytooverturn theleaseorchangeitsstatusasalessee.

13. Licensor-Licenseerelationship
In licensor- licensee relationship the same rule operates like that in the landlord-tenant relationship. When a licensee
obtainsthe possession through licencecannot denythetitletothe licensorunlessthe relationshipceases to exist.
A allowed B to use the washroom in his backyard. B fraudulently made the duplicate keys of those washrooms and
refused to vacate. In court A cannot in his suit for ejectment say that B holds no title over those washrooms as he was the
onewhogavehimaccess to them.
Estoppelinmortgagor- mortgageerelationship
When upon the contract of mortgage, a property has been mortgaged by one person to another and the person to whom
it has been mortgaged, i.e. the mortgagee, has taken possession, then the parties to the contract cannot deny the right of
eachother under thecontract asproposed inArjunSinghv.Maheshanand.
In a situation where the mortgage is about the end and payment has to be made by the mortgagee, in that period if the
mortgagee claims that the mortgagor seems to have no interest in the property, he would be estopped from doing so. The
rule under mortgagor-mortgagee relationship gives rise to the doctrine of estoppel only when the claims under the suit
filedisbasedonthe contract of mortgage andincasesof repudiation of themortgage.

14. SECTION - 117
Estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange, bailee or
licensee.
• The section states that the acceptor of the bills of exchange cannot deny the person who is supposed to draw the bills, from drawing
it or endorsing it. Also no bailee or licensee can deny the fact that at the time when the bailment and license began, the bailor and
the licensor had the authority to make bailment or to give license. The person accepting the bills of exchange can deny that the bills
of exchange were really drawn by the very person who showed to have drawn it. If the bailor mistakenly delivers the goods to some
thirdpartyinstead of thebailee,hecanprove thatathirdpartyhastherightoverthegoodsbailedagainstthebailor.
Scope
• This section demarcates that the person who accepts the bills of exchange although cannot deny that the person drawing the bills
has the authority to draw or to endorse it but can deny that the bills were actually drawn by the person by whom it appeared to have
been drawn.
• The bailee or the licensor cannot deny the fact that at the beginning of bailment or grant, the bailor or the licensor had the authority
to perform it. But a bailee can prove that the third party to whom the goods were delivered instead of the bailor had the right against
thebailee.

15. ADMISSION
• Admission,asdefinedunder Section17of TheIndianEvidenceAct,1872:
“Anadmission isastatement,oralordocumentary orcontainedinelectronicform,
whichsuggestsanyinferenceastoanyfact inissueorrelevantfact,andwhich ismadebyanyofthe
persons,andunderthecircumstances hereinaftermentioned.”
Introduction
• Admission isdescribed underpart - 1relevancyoffacts: chapter –2:subchapter –Admissions: section
17to 22.

16. In E.C.T. Farming Society Case, Beg, J. of the Supreme Court observed: It is well settled that the effect of
anadmissiondependsupon the circumstances inwhich itwasmade.
A statement to be used as an admission must be clear, specific and unambiguous and in the own words of
the person making it and has to be proved to be so. It is not an interference drawn by anybody which
should be taken as an admission. An admission to be worthy of being received in evidence, considered and
relied upon, it should firstly be the clear-cut and accurate statement of that very person in his own works. It
hasto beprovedto bethe statementofthe person who made it.
An admission must be examined as a whole and not in parts. Statements in pleadings are admissions
against the party making them. He cannot be allowed to rely upon favourable parts and throw the rest by
oral evidence. In Union of India v. Moksh Builders etc, Court stated that an admission is substantive
evidence of the fact admitted and when properly proved is relevant irrespective of the fact whether the
person making such admission made it in witness-box or not and whether he was confronted with those
statementsornotincasehemade astatementcontraryto hisadmissions.

17. 1. The terms ‘Relevance’ and ‘Admissibility’ are often considered as synonyms but the legal implication
of both the words are very distinct. There’s a very prominent phrase to throw light on the difference
between the two words. The word relevance has a broader scope as compared to the word
admissibility.Relevanceisthegenusofwhich admissibilityisthe species.
2. In relevancy, the Court may apply its discretion. Whereas, in admissibility, there is no scope for the
Court to applydiscretion.
3. All admissible facts are relevant. But, all relevant facts are not admissible. Only legally relevant facts
areadmissible.
Relevancy & Admissibility

18. Evidenceunder theIndian EvidenceAct,1872 meansandincludes:
1.All the statements which are permissible and admissible by the Court made by the witnesses before it or in
front of themagistrate, regardingthe mattersof adispute underquestion.
2.Allthe documents produced forinspection asperthe orderof theCourt includingthe electronicrecords.
What constitutes admissible evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
What kind of evidence are inadmissible in Court?
1. Unfairly Prejudicial
2. WastesTime
3. Misleading
4. Hearsayevidence
5. ExpertTestimony
6. Privileges

19. Persons whose admissions are relevant
Listofpersons whose admissionsarerelevantistobefoundintheprovisionsof
sections18to 20.
Therearesevenclassesof persons who canmake admissions-
1.Partyto theproceeding (Section 18)
2.Agentauthorizedbysuch party (Section 18)
3.Partysuing orsuedinarepresentativecharacter (Section 18)
4.Personwho hasanyproprietary orpecuniaryinterest(Section 18)
5.Persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the
subject-matter ofthe suit.(Section 18)
6.Aperson whoseposition isinissueorisrelevant.(Section 19)
7.Persons expresslyreferred bythe partytosuit. (Section 20)

20. Section – 21 Proof of admissions against persons making
them, and by or on their behalf.
Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them or his representative in
interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in
interest,exceptinthefollowing cases—
1.An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature that, if the
person makingitwere dead,itwould berelevantasbetweenthirdpersons under section 32.
2.An admission may by proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it consists of a statement of the
existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when such state of mind
orbodyexisted,andisaccompanied byconduct renderingitsfalsehood improbable.
3.An admission may be proved by on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an
admission.

21. • The confession is something which is made by the person who is charged with any criminal
offences and such statements conferred by him shall be suggesting a conclusion as to any fact in
issue or as to relevant facts. The statements may infer any reasoning for concluding or suggesting
that he is guilty of a crime. We may also define the confession in other words that the admission
bytheaccused inthe criminal proceedings isaconfession.
CONFESSION
• Section24 to30 underIndianEvidenceAct,1872 describes thatwhich facts areto beproved and
takenasaconfession, andwhich facts arenottobeproved.
Introduction
• “AllConfessionsareadmissions,butnotallAdmissionsareconfessions.”

22. Case Laws
In Nishi Kant Jha v State of Bihar, the Supreme Court highlighted that there is no wrong on relying some
part of statements confessed by the accused and neglecting the other part, the court has traced out this
concept from English Law and when court in its capacity understood that it has enough evidence to neglect
the exculpatory partof theconfession, thenitmayrelyon theinculpatorypartsuch confession.
In the case of Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab the Supreme Court approved the Privy Council decision
inPakalaNarayan Swami caseovertwo scores.
Firstly, that the definition if confession is that it must either admit the guilt in terms or admit substantially
all the facts which constitute the offence. Secondly, that a mixed up statement which even though contains
some confessional statement will still lead to acquittal, is no confession. Thus, a statement that contains self-
exculpatory matterwhich iftruewould negatethe matteroroffence, cannotamount toconfession.

23. When is a confession irrelevant?
• Sections24,25,26 andrelevantpartofSection 27of theIndianEvidenceAct, 1872dealswith
conditionthatwhencanconfession beirrelevant.
• A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the
confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, having
reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and
sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to
him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a
temporal natureinreference tothe proceeding againsthim.

24. Confession to Police, Police Custody and effect of
police presence.
• The essence of commission can be found in different statutes but Section 24 to 30 of Evidence Act and
section 162to 164of CrPCspecifically dealswitha confession.
• Section25 provides that“No statementsmadetoaPoliceOfficer shallbeconsideredasaconfession for the
purpose of provingthatconfession againstthatpersonwho isaccused tothe case”.Thetermsexplainedunder
Section25 of thisActhasvitalimportancewhich makessurethatanyconfession madebytheaccused tothe
police officer underanycircumstances untilprovided,istotallynotadmissible asevidenceinacourtof law
againsttheaccused toprovehisguilt.
• Section26 prohibits thejudicialbodiestoprovetheguiltofaccused byhisconfession which ismadeto police in
police custody. Section26 imposes apartialbanonprovisionsstatedin Section25 thatconfession made tothe
police officer inpolice custody maybeadmissibleiftheconfession recorded inthe immediatepresence ofa
magistrate.

25. Confession in further discovery of facts
Section 27 lift the concept of the relevance of information received from the accused by irrelevant confess
made to police or in police custody which may help in further discovery of facts of the cases. Section
27 provides that whenever a fact is forcefully discovered in the course of receiving information from
accused during a police investigation or in the police custody and whenever such information leads to the
discovery ofotherrelevantfacts theymay bedistinctlybe proved.
In Pandu Rang Kallu Patil v. State of Maharashtra, while deciding the case stated that Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act was enacted as to lift and to remove the ban provided in section 25 and 26 of the Act
in such a way that- Section 25 and 26, absolutely bans the admission of any confession made to the police
orin police custodybutthe objectsofSection 27 providesthe admission of statementsmadeby an accused
even to the Police Officer and the objective explained by the Supreme Court was that such confession may
helpinfurther discovery offacts which mayhelp thecourt to proveotherfacts relatedto thecase.

26. Section 29
Section29 provides thatthereisnobartoadmissibilityofaconfession evenifitwasmadeunderthepromise of
secrecy.Under thissectionaconfession made byanaccused isrelevantevenifitcan beexcluded from beingproved
underthefollowing circumstances:
1.Whenitwasmade totheaccused underapromise ofsecrecy;
2.By practicing adeception ontheaccused;
3.Whentheaccused wasdrunk;
4.Inanswertoquestion which theaccused neednothavetoanswered:or
5.Whennoprior warningwasgiventoaccusedthathewas notboundtomakeany confessionandthatmightbeused
againsthim.

27. Section 30
• Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same
offence.—When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made
by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into
consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such
confession.
• In the case of Kashmira Singh v. State of MP, the accused Kashmira, Gurudayal who was the brother of
Kashmira, Prithipal son of Gurudayal and one Gurubachan, a rickshaw puller in this case was being jointly
accused of conspiracy and killing a child. The Supreme Court in this case issued some conditions which
needed to befulfilledbefore takingintoconsideration theconfessionof oneof theaccused againstallothers.
 Jointtrial:Theperson whoismakingaconfession andtheother accused persons arebeingtriedjointly.
 Sameoffence: Alltheaccusedarebeingtriedforthesame offence.
 Confessions: Theconfessionmust affecttheconfessioner aswellastheother accusedpersons.

28. Thank you for
listening
Bibliography and
References: -
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/landlord-tenant--leases/262648/doctrine-of-estoppel-overview
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-of-estoppel-in-the-indian-evidence-
act/#:~:text=Section%20115%20of%20the%20Indian,the%20truth%20of%20that%20thing
• Ratanlal dhirajlal law of evidence 21st edition, page no. 609, para 5th.
• Ratanlal dhirajlal law of evidence 21st edition, page no. 610, para 2nd
• Ratanlal dhirajlal law of evidence 21st edition
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-of-estoppel-in-the-indian-evidence-
act/#Conditions_for_application_of_Doctrine_of_Estoppel
• https://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/section-29-of-the-indian-evidence-act-1872/120428
• Criminal manual, Criminal Major Acts.