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 representa