Estoppel -Section 115 of Evidence Act

Section 115 of Indian Evidence Act lays down law of Estoppel which says that when one person by making a false representation (either by words or by conduct) has intentionally caused a person to believe to a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative in interest, in a subsequent proceeding will be allowed to say that the representation is false.

Rule of estoppel is based on Rule of equity and provide that when a person has made false representation and upon such representation other person has acted to his disadvantage then law prohibits the former to turn back and say that representation was false. Section 115 of Act provides:

"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." So following are the ingredients of Rule of Estoppel as defined under section 115:

(a) There must be some representation.

(b) The Representation must be made with the intention to be acted upon.

(c) Representation must have been acted upon.

1. Representation : First requirement of Rule of Estoppel is that there must be representation either by words or by conduct to another. This representation may be untrue or false or of some existing fact, made to person who is not aware the truth of that fact. Where the party effected by the representation had come to know before acted upon it, that the representation was false he cannot avail the Rule of Estoppel. In Mohri Bibi v. Dharam Das Ghosh A minor entered into contract of Mortgage Later when Minor claimed that he being minor at the time of contract, so contract is void. Fact that Mortgage was minor was in the knowledge of Mortgage Court held that Rule of Estoppel is not applicable as Mortgage was aware about his minority.

2 . Intention : It is not necessary that the representation should be false to the knowledge of person making it provided that (i) it is intended to be acted upon in the manner in which it has been acted upon or (ii) the person who makes it so conducts himself that a reasonable man would take the representation to be true.

3. Representation Acted Upon It is also necessary to invoke the benefit of estoppel that representation must have been acted upon taking it to be true by the party to whom it was made.

Kinds of Estoppel: There are 3 kinds of Estoppel

(i) Estoppel by Matter of Record

(ii) Estoppel by Deed

(iii) Estopel by Conduct

(i) Estoppel of Record : It arises (i) When a matter or issue of fact between parties has been finally determined by Tribunal or court of exclusive jurisdiction and same issue has directly come in question in any subsequent proceeding between same partiesSection 11 of C.P.C. incorporate this Rule as "Res Judicata". Constructive Res Judicata also is `Estoppel by Record which says when a fact or matter might or ought to be made ground of defence or attack in any proceeding between parties but actually has not been raised such matter shall deemed to be directly in issue and parties shall be estopped from raising it in any subsequent proceeding.

(ii) Estoppel by Deed : Estopped by deed is based on the principle that when a person has entered into a solemn engagement by deed under his hand, he shall not be permitted to deny any matter which he has so asserted. Where in a deed made between party and verified by their seals, there is a statement of fact, an estoppel results, no one shall be permitted to deny what is recited in deed.

(iii) Estoppel by Conduct : When a person by his conduct i.e. by his words or declaration, or act or omission represent another a thing either with the knowledge of his falsehood or with the intention that it should be acted upon or has conducted in such manner so as a reasonable man with ordinary prudence would belief representation to be true and act upon it, then estoppel arises against party who made representation by his conduct and he is not permitted to say otherwise than what he has represented by his conduct.

Functus Officio -Principle

Functus officio is the principle in terms of which decisions of officials are deemed to be final and binding once they are made. They cannot, once made, be revoked by the decision maker. Both the granter and receiver of rights know where they stand. The doctrine supports fairness and certainty. A simple example would be the granting of a fishing licence against payment of the required fee - the right to fish endures for as long as the permit endures. The official who has granted the licence has discharged his office, and is functus.

But the doctrine does not apply to all administrative decisions. It applies only to decisions that have the following qualities:

• The decision must be final.
• Rights or benefits must have been granted.

In Judicial Proceedings

There is no power of review with the  Court after judgment has been rendered. The High Court can alter or review its judgment before it is signed. When an order is passed, it cannot be reviewed. It is principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a Court, the said Court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and is disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for any relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The Court becomes functus officio the moment the order for disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or arithmetical error. There is also no provision for modification of the judgment.