Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Kishanwati (since deceased) wd/o Shamsher Singh through his son Bijender Singh - Appellant
Versus
Bacchu Singh and others - Respondents
RSA No.4006 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided on : 18-05-2018
Estoppel - Property Dispute - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 115 - The court considered the application of the rule of estoppel in depriving an owner of immovable property. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and emphasized the intentional causation of belief and the prohibition on denying the truth of that belief. The court found that the plaintiff's actions did not constitute estoppel as she did not make the defendants believe that there was no testamentary document, and the defendants failed to prove any steps taken by the plaintiff to create such belief. The court also highlighted the immediate ownership succession of the property to the wives upon the husband's death and the lack of evidence of any document divesting the plaintiff of her title to the property.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, through her legal representatives, filed a suit claiming ownership of a disputed property based on a testamentary document. The lower courts refused relief to the plaintiff, citing estoppel as she had sold part of the property after mutation was sanctioned. The question of law was whether estoppel can be used to deprive an owner of immovable property when the other party does not prove intentional causation of belief and change of position.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's actions did not constitute estoppel as she did not make the defendants believe that there was no testamentary document, and the defendants failed to prove any steps taken by the plaintiff to create such belief. The court also emphasized the immediate ownership succession of the property to the wives upon the husband's death and the lack of evidence of any document divesting the plaintiff of her title to the property.
Issues: The issues involved the application of the rule of estoppel in a property dispute, the immediate ownership succession of the property, and the lack of evidence of any document divesting the plaintiff of her title to the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's actions did not constitute estoppel as she did not make the defendants believe that there was no testamentary document, and the defendants failed to prove any steps taken by the plaintiff to create such belief. The court also emphasized the immediate ownership succession of the property to the wives upon the husband's death and the lack of evidence of any document divesting the plaintiff of her title to the property.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgments and decrees passed by both the lower courts and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff, granting a declaration that the plaintiff and defendant No.11 became owners of the property in dispute based on the testamentary document, and that the mutation sanctioned was wrong, illegal, and did not affect their rights.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. Arguments were heard. Judgment was reserved. The judgment is being released.
2. The plaintiff through her LRs is in the Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below.
3. The question which needs consideration is as under:-
(1) Whether rule of estoppel can used to deprive an owner of the immoveable property particularly when other party does not claim and prove that the owner made them believe in a particular manner by act and conduct or omission and they acted on aforementioned representation and changed their position?
3. Some facts are required to be noticed. Shamsher Singh was owner of the property in dispute. He was having two wives namely Kishanwati-plaintiff and Dayawati-defendant No.11. He executed a testamentary document (Will) dated 30.03.1994 bequeathing his entire property in favour of his two wives. Sh. Shamsher Singh died on 29.12.1994. Some of the properties, details whereof, given in the testamentary document dated 30.03.1994, were mutated in favour of two wives named above as per the testamentary document dated 30.03.1994. However, mutation of the land situated in the Village Jharsaintli was not sanctioned. Ultimately, the mutation was sanctioned with respect to land situated in Village Jharsaintli on the basis of the natural succession on 15.06.2006 ignoring the testamentary document. Smt. Kishanwati and her sons from Shamsher Singh executed three separate sale deeds Ex.D1, Ex.D2 and Ex.D3 on 16.10.2006 and 19.10.2006 selling some part of the property situated in Village Jharsaintli.
4. Smt. Kishanwati-plaintiff filed a suit on 05.04.2007 claiming declaration that she is owner of the property alongwith defendant No.11 and the mutation sanctioned on 15.06.2006 on the basis of the natural succession is erroneous. Most of the defendants did not dispute the validity of the Will. However, defendant Nos.1 to 6 contested the suit and claimed that the suit property has not been bequeathed by the testamentary document i.e. dated 30.03.1994. The suit was also contested on the ground that the plaintiff herself had executed the sale deed and, therefore, has acted upon the aforesaid mutation, hence she is estopped. Defendant Nos.8 and 9 denied the execution of the Will.
5. Learned Court after appreciating the evidence returned a finding that Sh. Shamsher Singh had executed a Will dated 30.03.1994. The Court further found that the execution of the Will is not disputed by either parties. The Court further found that Shamsher Singh had bequeathed all his properties in equal share to both the wives i.e. plaintiff and defendant No.11. The assertions of the defendants that the property in dispute is not covered by the testamentary document were rejected by both the Courts below.
6. However, learned Courts below have refused to grant the relief to the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff is estopped from claiming the property on the basis of the testamentary document dated 30.03.1994, after having got the mutation sanctioned and sold some party of the property which had come to her share pursuant to the aforesaid mutation on the basis of natural succession.
NOW THE STAGE IS SET FOR CONSIDERING THE QUESTION OF LAW FRAMED ABOVE:-
(1) Whether rule of estoppel can used to deprive an owner of the immoveable property particularly when other party does not claim and prove that the owner made them believe in a particular manner by act and conduct or omission and they acted on aforementioned representation and changed their position?
7. Rule of Estoppel is provided under Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Section 115 of the same is extracted as under:-
“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 representa
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
