A person may be estopped from filing a suit if they have made a representation to another person, the other person has acted upon the representation, and the person making the representation has suffered detriment as a result.

1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgement and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, dated March 24, 1972.

2. The following pedigree table will be helpful in understanding the facts of the case.

3. The property in dispute belonged to Sunder Singh deceased. After his death Smt. Hukmi inherited it. She died in the year 1960. The plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to whole of her property being the brothers and sister of her husband. It is alleged that Ujagar Singh defendant took forcible possession of 1/4th share of the land and get mutation sanctioned in his name. Consequently the present suit has been filed by them for 1/4th share of the land.

4. The suit was contested by the defendant who inter alia pleaded that the plaintiffs were estopped by their conduct from filing the present suit and that the suit was barred by limitation. The other pleas taken by the defendant are not relevant for the purpose of the decision of the present appeal. The learned trial Court held that the plaintiffs were not estopped by their conduct from filing the suit and that the suit was within limitation. It consequently decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The defendant went up in appeal before the Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, who affirmed the judgement and the decree of the trial Court. He has came up in second appeal to this Court.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiffs were estopped from filing the present suit. He submits that the finding of the first appellate Court is vitiated as he did not take into consideration the admission of the plaintiffs that the defendant came in possession of property of Sunder Singh during his lifetime and continued thereafter. He further submits that in view of the family settlement arrived at between the parties the appellant retained possession of 1/4th share and surrendered possession of the remaining property to the plaintiffs. According to the learned counsel this was the material fact which the Courts below did not take into consideration. It is also urged by him that if the aforesaid circumstance along with the other circumstances which are mentioned in the judgements of the Courts below is taken into consideration then it is established that the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit. On the other hand Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently argued that the question of estoppel is a question of fact and this Court cannot interfere with the decision of the first appellate Court on this issue.

6. I have considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In order to determine the question, a few facts may be noticed. Sham Singh, plaintiff, admitted that Ujagar Singh was cultivating the land of Sunder Singh during his lifetime. There is nothing to show that he was dispossessed by Smt. Hukmi after his death. If he had been dispossessed the plaintiffs would have brought that evidence. It is also relevant to mention that the defendant asserted in his statement that during the lifetime of Smt. Hukmi, he was cultivating the land. From the aforesaid facts it is evident that the defendant was in possession of the land during the lifetime of Sunder Singh and Smt. Hukmi and was also in its possession at the time of her death.

7. According to the defendant he handed over possession of 3/4th share of land to the plaintiffs after the death of Smt. Hukmi, as they agreed to give him 1/4th share in the land. This fact is proved from the Jamabandi relating to year 1963-64 (Ex. D-9) wherein the parties are shown in possession of the total land left by Sunder Singh deceased, according to their shares. It is also significant that after the death of Smt. Hukmi, her land was mutated in the name of Ujagar Singh, Sham Singh, Wasakha, Singh and Smt. Rami in equal shares vide mutation No. 1374 (Ex. P-4). At the time of attestation of mutation on Feb. 21, 1961, Wasakha Singh was prese