In Pickard v. Sears, the machinery's mortgagee allowed it to stay in the mortgagor's possession, and a judgment was obtained against them. The equipment was confiscated during execution, but the mortgagee foolishly did not mention to the judgment creditors' attorney that the equipment in which he had an interest had been seized to satisfy another person's debt, nor did he assert any claim to the equipment for a while. When he finally did, it was decided that because of his actions, which amounted to a deliberate representation to that effect, he might be barred from disputing that the machinery belonged to the debtor.

Estoppel is based on the maxim allegans contraria non est audiendus. It is a type of proesumptio juris et de jure in which the fact presumed is accepted as true only because of an act committed, not because it is true against everyone. In actuality, this is a form of argumentum ad hominern. Therefore, it would seem that the term "estoppels" should not be used interchangeably with "conclusive evidences"; the former refers to legal conclusions made against parties based on specific facts, while the latter refers to any body of evidence that is either conclusive on a party by common or statute law or sufficiently strong to persuade a tribunal of a case.

Section 116 reads: Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession: During the term of the tenancy, no renter or person claiming through a tenant may deny that the landlord of that tenant had title to the immovable property at the beginning of the tenancy; similarly, no person who came into possession of any immovable property through the license of the person in possession may deny that they had title to that possession at the time that license was granted.

Section 117: Estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange, Bailee, or licensee: No bailee or licensee may dispute that his bailor or licensor had the right to make the bailment or grant the license at the time the bailment or license commenced, nor may an acceptor of a bill of exchange dispute that the drawer had the right to draw the bill or to endorse it.

Explanation 1: A bill of exchange's acceptor may contest that the person named on the bill did not actually draw it.

Explanation 2: If the bailee gives the items to a person who isn't the bailor, they can use that information to establish their claim against the bailor.

Originally conceived of as a drawback in the evidence domain, the principle has grown in application. "Estoppel by matter in writing" is another term for estoppel by deed, which is based on the idea that written evidence is more reliable than oral testimony. In a court of law, estoppel by deed can be used to persuade a party not to take a contrary position. The written instrument is always relied upon in an estoppel by deed. There has been disagreement over whether estoppel is a rule of substantive law or a rule of evidence ever since the concept was developed and used in court cases.

Within the framework of Section 115 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the concept of estoppel is acknowledged as a rule of evidence in India. "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," states the section, "where one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe such a thing to be true and to act upon such belief."

Regarding the theory of estoppel in relation to Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the court stated in the case of R.S. Madanappa and ors. v. Chandramma and Anr. that "we doubt whether the court could travel beyond the provisions of Section 115 of the Evidence Act while determining whether the conduct of a particular party amounts to an estoppel."

The appellants in this case argued in the historic Ganges Mfg. Co. v. Sourujmull decision that the only estoppel laws that are currently in effect in then-existing India under British rule are those found in Sections 115 to 117 of Chapter VIII of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. They further argued that all doctrines and rules pertaining to the Evidence Law would be nullified, with the exception of those that are part of the Act itself, in accordance with Section of the previously stated Act.

Nature of Estoppel

1. As a Rule of Evidence: The opinion that estoppel is solely an evidentiary rule is highly respected. Estoppel is viewed similarly to an incontrovertible presumption of law since it hinders the opposite party from refuting any of the facts that they have asserted. However, there are two types of evidence that set an estoppel apart from this kind of presumption—which is a substantive law norm. Estoppel often only applies between the parties to an action, and the person who would otherwise profit from it may waive it.
    
2. As a Matter of Pleading: Estoppels, according to jurist Stephen Fitzjames, are more appropriate under the law of pleading than under the law of proof. A party wishing to rely on estoppel must bring up this point and provide the pertinent details in his pleading, with certain minor exceptions. Estoppel is a rule of evidence; however, this need requires an exemption to the general rule that evidence should not be pleaded. If an estoppel defense is not raised, it could be interpreted as a waiver, making facts that would otherwise be excluded permissible.
    
3. As Substantive Law: The doctrine of estoppel belongs rather to substantive than to adjective law. Yet it has been shown that estoppels are not on the same footing as the rules of substantive law embodied in irrefutable presumptions, and estoppels will not generally found a cause of action at common law, for they involve no claim. However, it is said that they may support claims to equitable relief and they may amount to a defense when they prevent a plaintiff proving some facts essential to his case.

Estoppel has no function or effectiveness at all, except from serving as a barrier to testifying. It should be emphasized that this does not, by itself, constitute a cause of action. However, the use of this rule of evidence, like any other, during a legal proceeding, may lead to the complete or partial establishment or disestablishment of the case put out by one or more of the parties.

Estoppel does not completely eliminate the right; it only serves as a barrier to the lawsuit. Estoppel addresses factual issues rather than moral ones. Stated differently, there is no overarching legal principle that prevents a person from exercising a privilege that they have said they will not One of the rules of evidence that is specific to the parties involved is estoppel by representation; it does not fall under the category of rules pertaining to rights or titles against the public domain. Therefore, the doctrine of estoppel may alter or create substantive rights as between the parties to the representation.

Conclusion
The definition of estoppel is the "preclusion of a person to assert a fact which has been admitted or determined under circumstances of solemnity, such as by matter of record or by deed, or which he has, by an act in pais, induced another to believe and act upon to his prejudice." This definition makes it clear that there are three main categories of estoppels: (1) estoppels by deed; (2) estoppels by record; and (3) estoppels in pais, often known as equitable estoppels. In fact, the latter and all of these are occasionally addressed under the heading of "conclusive" admissions. First- and second-class estoppel has been adequately covered elsewhere.

Written By: Akanksha