A person who, by his conduct, permits another person to believe a thing to be true and act upon such belief, is estopped from contesting the truth.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit, which the plaintiff brought for the possession of a house sold to him. The plaintiff purchased the house from Rajmal and. this suit is filed against Rajmal as well as Rajmal's elder brother, Dhannalal.

2. Rajmal did not enter any defence but his elder brother Dhannalal, has resisted the suit on the ground that the house in question was joint family property, that he as the elder brother was the Karta of the family, that his younger brother Rajmal (who was a mere co-parcener) had no right to sell the house.

It was also said in the written statement that the real reason for the sale of the house by Rajmal was to save it from attachment of a decree, which one Halkoo had obtained against Rajmal. The defendant, Dhannalal, however admitted his signature as an attesting witness on the sale-deed, and has also admitted that he identified his brother before the Registrar at the time of the registration of the deed.

The trial court held that the property was not joint but divided, and that in the circumstances Rajmal could have sold only half of the house and decreed the suit accordingly. The plaintiff filed an appeal against this before the District Judge, Bhilsa, who passed a decree for the possession of the entire house. Now Dhannalal has filed this second appeal.

3. The learned District Judge has held :

1. That Dhannalal was aware of the sale of the house.

2. That with his knowledge and consent the house was sold, and,

3. That his attestation of the sale-deed and later on his identification of his younger brother now preclude him from challenging the validity of the transaction on the basis of the doctrine of estoppel.

4. The case really turns upon the determination of the question as to what importance is to be attached to the attestation and later on to the identification by Dhannalal at the time of the sate of the house.

5. Assuming that the property was joint and Dhannalal was the Karta of the family (this is the defendant's case) his attestation and later on identification incline one to the view that he allowed the house to be sold and gave his consent to the transaction.

It is a well-established proposition of law that if a man conducts himself in such a way that a reasonable man would take his representation to be true, and acts upon it then the party making the representation is precluded from contesting the truth. I refer to the principle of "estoppel".

In this case Dhannalal made no verble representation to the purchaser but this is an instance of estoppel by conduct, where under the condition of! the case, representation may be inferred from silence or inaction. In the first place, Dhannalal admits that he had knowledge of the sale. Later on with full knowledge of the facts, he not only attested his signature to the sale-deed, but he also went with his brother, Rajmal to the office of the Registrar, where he identified Rajmal as the seller. Dhannalal never cared to inform the purchaser that Rajmal had no saleable interest in the property and by his conduct he permitted the purchaser to believe the thing to be true to act upon such a belief.

6. The doctrine of estoppel is based upon consideration of fraud. If a man by his declaration, act or omission has permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and has permitted him to act upon such a belief then the action of such, a man is fraudulent and it is a well established rule of the law that where the fraudulent intention has succeeded, the court will not assist the person guilty of fraud or misrepresentation. The principle is aptly expressed in an English decision- ('Niven v. Belknap', 2 Johns 673 (A)) by being stated that

"where a man has been silent when in conscience he ought to have spoken he shall be debarred from speaking when conscience requires him to be silent."

In- 'Jankiram Sital Ram v. Chota Nagpur Banking Association', AIR 1937 Pat 169 (B). Courtney-Terrell, Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, in a somewhat si