Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 1872, lays down the rule regarding estoppel. It is basically a rule of evidence. Section 115 is 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 representative, to deny the truth of that thing.
Illustration
A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land belongs to A, and thereby induces B to buy and pay for it.
The land afterwards becomes the property of A, and A seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, he had no title. He must not be allowed to prove his want of title.”
The principle of promissory estoppel is a principle of equity. This principle implies that where one party, by his own statement or conduct, makes a clear promise to another party, intending that it would be acted upon by such other party, and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise so made by the first party would be binding on him and he would not be entitled to go back upon it.
What if a person makes a statement with regard to the existence of certain legal provisions existing in a statute, i.e., a law made by an appropriate legislature, such as the Parliament, and subsequently, it turns out that the actual statutory provision is different from what he stated? Is such person estopped from denying the existence of the statutory provisions which he earlier stated? Can he now say that different legal provisions actually exist.
So, is there an estoppel against a statute or against legal provisions?
Well, the Supreme Court has held that there is no estoppel against a statute.
In the case of Sneh Gupta v. Devi Sarup, (2009) 6 SCC 194, the Supreme Court held that the question of estoppel and/or election as also the doctrine of approbate or reprobate, whereupon reliance has been placed, has exceptions, one of them being that there is no estoppel against statute.
The reason is quite clear. Everybody is supposed to know the law. It is well known that ignorance of law is no excuse. A person may make a wrong statement about the existence of certain statutory provisions, but the other person can easily find out the true and correct provisions of law on that issue before such other person relies upon the statement made by the first person.
Therefore, the second person cannot take help of the principle of estoppel against the first person to plead that a false representation was made regarding the statutory provisions. He should have himself checked the correct legal provisions. The principle of estoppel cannot supersede the statutory provisions.
Therefore, it is clear that there is no estoppel against a statute or a legal provision.
