MOHINDER PAL Vs. OMWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. Relevant facts

(2.) BOTH the appeals arise out of two suits filed by the same plaintiff. The plaintiff's contention was that he was the owner of the suit property in revenue estate, Rohtak. The suit was dismissed by both the courts on a finding that the plaintiff had established his title to the property, but however a relief of mandatory injunction for demolition of the building that had been put up by the respective defendants in the two suits cannot be afforded to the plaintiff. At the appellate Court, in the appeal filed by Devki Bai and Vas Dev, the Court reversed the judgment holding that when the plaintiff had not him -self committed any fraud or made any false representation allowing for construction to be put up, his suit for mandatory injunction cannot be declined. The appellate Court also took note of the fact that the defendants had themselves not secured any sanction from the Municipal Committee before putting up any construction and, therefore, they were bound to vacate the property. The extent of encroachment noticed by the trial Court was 162 square yards delineated by letters 'MNIO' in Khasra No. 11012/8276. The appeal by the defendants is in RSA No. 2092 of 1985. In yet another appeal filed by the plaintiff against Omwati, the appeal was dismissed and the Court found that the defendant in that case had actually misunderstood that the suit property was her own property and after a demarcation done through officials, a municipal sanction had also been issued for putting up construction. The plaintiff had actually allowed for the construction to come up at all times without any objection and, therefore, the plaintiff was barred by estoppel and acquiescence.

(3.) I take the issue of title as concluded by the concurrent judgments rendered by the trial Court and the appellate Court and examine only on the issue of whether the plaintiff's right to the property could be defeated and the prayer for mandatory injunction for demolition of construction could be denied by alleged acquiescence and estoppel. For the principle of estoppel to be applied, it is essential that all the ingredients of Section 115 of the Evidence Act are satisfied. In a particular situation where the plaintiff sues on title and it is sought to be defeated by a person that the plaintiff had, allowed for construction to be made, then the most crucial aspect has to be that the person, who is sought to be barred by the principle of estoppel must be found guilty of having made a representation and the other party must have acted on such representation and altered the situation to his disadvantage. It is only if there was some representation that was expressed or implied by a person against whom the principle is to be invoked that a plaintiff can be defeated in his right by estoppel. There has been no attempt at the trial that the plaintiff had allowed or authorized the defendants to put up construction and he resiled from the same later. I have no doubt in my mind that the case simply does not answer the legal requirements of estoppel under Section 115 of the Evidence Act.