The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of estoppel in property disputes, particularly in relation to the conduct and attestation of sale deeds, and the interpretation of Section 317 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Sundara Aiyar, J.

1. The suit in this case is for restraining first defendant from interfering 11th the plaintiffs enjoyment of certain lands. The plaintiff obtained a sale of it from the 2nd defendant in 1906. Prior to the sale the land had been sold in execution of a decree against the 2nd defendant in a Small Cause Suit. The 1st defendant was the auction purchaser. The auction sale took place in June 1904. Admittedly the land previously belonged to the 2nd defendant. The plaintiffs case is that the auction purchase was really for the benefit of the 2nd defendant and that the 1st defendant was only a benamidar. This plea has been upheld by both the courts. The 1st defendant set up his own title to the land as the real purchaser and contended that Section 317 of Civil Procedure Code was a bar to the plaintiffs suit. Both the Lower Courts held that Section 317. was not applicable in the circumstances of the case. There was an issue raised as to whether the 1st defendant was estopped by his conduct from questioning plaintiffs title. The conduct referred to consisted in the 1st defendant allowing the 2nd defendant to remain in possession of the land for a period of about 3 years after the auction sale without taking any steps to assert his own title and in his attesting the sale deed executed by the 2nd defendant in plaintiffs favour Ex. C. The 1st defendant stated that he made the attestation without any knowledge of the contents of Ex. C. But his story had been disbelieved by both the courts. I am of opinion that this appeal may be disposed of on the issue of estoppel. Ex. C. was executed on the 6th July 1936. Till then the 1st defendant did not take steps to obtain a sale deed though the took place in April 1904 and it was confirmed in June 1904. His application, for a certificate was made in 1907 after he has attested Ex. C. Now Ex. C. recited that the land belonged to the 2nd defendant and was in his enjoyment. And this document was found by the lower Courts attested by the 1st defendant with full knowledge of its contents. The District Munsif found more against the 1st defendant. He was of opinion that there were good reasons to believe that it was the 1st defendant who brought about the sale and it cannot therefore be doubted for a moment that his attestation and also that of his undivided son were obtained as security for the vendees in token of the 1st defendant having admitted that he was only a benamidar in respect of the land purchased in court auction and which was with his full knowledge and consent included in the sale deed. The District Munsif does not say that it was the 1st defendant who brought about the sale deed. If he did so there could be no doubt 1st defendant would be estopped from asserting his own ownership, subject to an argument of Mr. Seshagiri Aiyar which I shall hereafter notice that the rule of estoppel is not applicable to such a case. There are no reasons to believe that the District Judge did not really agree with the District Munsif in his observation as to the part taken by the 1st defendant in the matter of the execution of the sale deed Ex. C. But it is not necessary to rest my judgment on the assumption that the District Judge intended to agree with the District Munsif. It would be quite enough if the 1st defendant with the knowledge of the recital that the land belonged to the 2nd defendant and was in his enjoyment as owner attested the sale deed executed by him to the plaintiffs. In the leading case of Sarat Chunder Dey v. Gopal Chunder Laha (1887) I. L R. 11 M. 234 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council expounding the law of estoppel observe "The principle on which the law and statute rest is, that it would be most inequitable and unjust to him that if another by a representation made or by conduct amounting to a representation has induced him to act as he would not otherwise have done, the person who made the representation should be allowed to deny or repudiate the effect