Introduction

• This is a leading case law on the concept of estoppel.
• It was dealt in the case that if the true facts are known to both the parties, then there is no question of estoppel. The person having knowledge of facts cannot take advantage of the principle of estoppel.

Facts

• The elder sister of the first defendant (plaintiff) initiated legal proceedings in the District Judge's court in Bangalore, seeking a declaration that she owns a fifty percent share in properties outlined in the complaint's schedule.
• Her claim also demanded the partition of this share and its separate possession, along with mesne profits.
• Alleging that the property initially belonged to her mother, Puttananjamma, and passed to her and the first defendant as heirs upon her demise, she sued since the first defendant refused to join as a co-plaintiff.
• The property was in possession of R S Maddanappa (the second defendant and the father of both parties), Gargavva (Maddanappa's second wife), and her children, became subject to litigation following Maddanappa's death.
• The defense said that Gowramma, Puttananjamma's mother, had orally settled the properties on both Puttananjamma and himself.
• The second defendant claimed adverse possession, insisting that the plaintiff and the first defendant abandoned their rights.
• Additionally, he argued for the benefit of Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) asserting significant expenditures for property improvements.
• The first defendant admitted the plaintiff's claim and sought a decree against other defendants for her half share.
• However, the other defendants resisted her claim, citing estoppel due to her conduct.
• The trial court granted the plaintiff's claim but ruled the first defendant estopped from seeking possession of her share.
• Both parties appealed to the High Court, resulting in the dismissal of the second to eighth defendants' appeal and the plaintiff's cross-objections, while the first defendant's appeal was successful.
• The HC awarded her a decree for possession of her half share and future mesne profits against the remaining defendants.
• Defendants no. 2 to 8 sought a certificate from the HC for an appeal, granted only for defendant 1.
• After that, an appeal was preferred to Supreme Court.

Issues Involved

• Whether not responding to the notice served upon first defendant by the plaintiff amounted to estoppel against her?
• Whether attestation of will of first defendant’s father by her amounts to estoppel against her?
• Whether doctrine of acquiescence has application in the present case?

Observations

• The SC said that the principles outlined in Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), derive from the well-established doctrine in Pickard v. Sears, serving as both an evidentiary rule and a safeguard against fraud. Estoppel aims to ensure fairness and honesty between parties.
• However, it does not apply if the misrepresented party was aware of the true facts, avoiding deception.
• It was said that a notice dated 26^th January 1948, the plaintiff's lawyer asserted joint ownership of properties by the plaintiff and the first defendant, seeking cooperation for division.
• The first defendant's lack of response and cooperation cannot be construed as an estoppel admission of disinterest.
• The document, executed by Madanappa, benefits defendants 3 to 8, but the attestation by the first defendant and her husband does not create an estoppel against them.
• The will's effectiveness hinges on Madanappa's death, with no accrued interest for defendants 3 to 8 at the time of the suit. Madanappa's awareness negates any detrimental impact from the first defendant's actions, rendering equitable estoppel inapplicable.
• The doctrine of acquiescence is irrelevant, as Madanappa, fully aware of the situation, experienced no mistaken belief due to the first defendant's actions.
• The court emphasizes that estoppel, especially equitable estoppel, is confined to the provisions of Section 115 of IEA.
• To invoke estoppel, the claimant must demonstrate altered positions and detriment resulting from the other party's representation, which is absent in this case.
• The appellant, enjoying the properties post his wife's death, cannot claim ownership or impose costs for improvements made without the owner's consent.
• Consequently, the first defendant is not estopped from claiming possession, and liability for improvement costs cannot be imposed.
• The SC upheld the decision given by the HC and dismissed the appeal with costs.