Present   : Shaw J. and De Sampayo J.   1915.

STUART v. HORMUSJEE.

257-D. C. Colombo, 40,244.

Action under s. 247, Civil Procedure Code-Estoppel-Principal tarrying on trade in the name of his agent-Claim by principal when goods were seized on writs against agent-Evidence. Ordinance, s. 115.

The doctrine of estoppel is not a rule of evidence, but an irrebuttable presumption. If a party to any proceeding proves that he has been induced by the other party to believe in a certain state of facts, and to act on such belief, then, so far as that other party is concerned, the state of facts must be assumed to be true, and the other party cannot be heard to say that they are not.

The word " intentionally" is used in section 115 of the Evidence-Ordinance of 1895 for the purpose of declaring the law here to be precisely the same as the law of England.

Whatever a man's real intention may be, i.e., in regard to making a representation of facts, if he so conducts himself that a reasonable man would take the representation to be true, and believe that it was meant that he should act upon it, and did act upon it as true,

the party making the representation would be precluded from contesting its truth.

One Hormusjee acquired the business of one Lawrence, and appointed him manager of " Lawrence & Co.," and by power of attorney gave him the very widest powers of conducting the business, including power to sign and accept bills of exchange. Lawrence having failed to meet his acceptances given in respect of certain goods ordered by him for " Lawrence & Co.," the respondent (judgment-creditor) seized the goods on the premises of Lawrence & Co. Hormusjee claimed, and on the claim being upheld respondent brought this action under section 247 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Held, in the circumstances of this case (see judgment), that Hormusjee was estopped from denying that the goods were the property of Lawrence.

THE facts are set out in the judgment.

Bawa, K.C. (with him F. M. de. Saram), for appellant.

Allan Drieberg (with him F. H. B. Koch and H. H. Bartholomeusz), for respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

August 31, 1915. SHAW J.-

This Action is brought by the respondent under section 247 of the Civil Procedure Code, claiming that certain goods seized in execution in two actions, Nos. 35,900 and 35,909 in the District Court of Colombo, is which he had recovered, judgments against one H. A. Lawrence, should be declared liable to be sold in execution of the decrees.

The District Judge has held that the appellant is estopped by his conduct and representations from denying that the goods seized are the property of the execution-debtor, and. has declared that they are liable to he sold in execution, and has further ordered that, in the event of the goods having been disposed of by the appellant, he should pay as damages to the respondent the full amount of the two judgments, namely, Rs. 1,737.14, with costs and interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent. until payment. From this decision the present appeal is brought.

It appears from the evidence that H. A. Lawrence and his father before him carried on business in the Pettah as tailors. In the time of the father the business was carried on under the name of " D. Lawrence & Co. "; it does not, however, appear from the evidence what the appellation of the business was after the father's death and prior to its acquisition by the appellant.

In the year 1921 the appellant, Mr. Hormusjee, appears to have acquired the business. Ha. appointed Mr. H. A. Lawrence as manager, and by power of attorney dated March 25, 1911, gave him the very widest powers of conducting the business, including power to sign and accept bills of exchange and other mercantile documents

in the name of the firm. The premises where she business was cards on were rented from the respondent by H. A. Lawrence in his own name, and trade stock was ordered by Lawrence