Section 115: 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, to deny the truth of that thing.
Section 116: Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession—
No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given.
Section 117: Estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange, bailee or licensee—
No acceptor of a bill of exchange shall be permitted to deny that the drawer had authority to draw such bill or to endorse it; nor shall any bailee or licensee be permitted to deny that his bailor or licensor had, at the time when the bailment or licence commenced, authority to make such bailment or grant such licence.
Explanation (1)—The acceptor of a bill of exchange may deny that the bill was really drawn by the person by whom it purports to have been drawn.
Explanation (2)—If a bailee delivers the goods bailed to a person other than the bailor, he may prove that such person had a right to them as against the bailor.
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS
B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy, (2003) 2 SCC 355 :“……“An estoppel,” says Lord Coke, “is where a man is concluded by his own act or acceptance to say the truth”. Mr Smith, in his notes to Duchess of Kingston case [(1776) 1 East PC 468 : 1 Leach 146 : 168 ER 175] characterizes this definition as a little startling but it nevertheless gives a good idea of what it is, by no means easy to include within the limits of a definition. (1 Smith LC 760)……….Though estoppel is described as a mere rule of evidence, it may have the effect of creating substantive rights as against the person estopped. An estoppel, which enables a party as against another party to claim a right of property which in fact he does not possess is described as estoppel by negligence or by conduct or by representation or by holding out ostensible authority.”