HOW ESTOPPEL IS DIFFERENT FROM RES JUDICATA

The Doctrine of estoppel is a very significant topic of Evidence law. The doctrine of Estoppel is embodied under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1892.[1] It states that it would be unfair When 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, 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.[2] It means that if a person intentionally by act, conduct or in any other manner has induced other person to believe and act upon such a representation, neither he or those representing can in a subsequent Court proceedings deny the truth.[3] In simple words, according to the doctrine of Estoppel, a person cannot deny upon a statement after having stated it to be true.

Following are the essential to be satisfied for estoppels:

1. there must be representation by a person,
2. the other party must have acted upon such representation,
3. such action or conduct must direct to the interests of the person whom the representation has been made.
4. That act causes injury to the other person,
5. Such a person is unaware of the actual situation.

      Types of Estoppel

1. Estoppel by record – It mainly arises from the judgements or the decisions of any competent courts. When any court gives its judgement of a particular subject matter, it then becomes final and conclusive. The parties and their counsels cannot bring the another suit, before the competent court, with the same subject matter. The judgement or the decision of the court becomes final and the parties are bound to it. The example of Estoppel by record is res judicata.
2. Estoppel by deed– It is the matter when two parties has entered into an agreement by way of deed as to certain facts. It mainly implies that neither the party nor the representatives or any other person related to the party can claim or deny any of the facts mentioned and agreed in the deed. Those facts in the deed are binding on all the parties to the agreement. If any the party denies to the facts then the party is stopped by the estoppel by deed.
3. Estoppel by conduct– It arises due to the act, conduct, omission, misrepresentation or negligence by the party. When the party through a particular agreement makes the other person believe in certain things upon which the other party takes action resulting in change in their current situation. If the party believes upon the representation made by any other party and on such belief the party has taken any action, then the first cannot deny the statement given by him at a later stage.

4. Equitable Estoppel – It generally arises when a party is stopped from an argument or legal defence in a lawsuit, relying upon that act or omission of the other party. Equitable estoppel is the process of preventing a person from going back on his word in the court. For example, If the plaintiff initially gave the permission to the defendant to do some act, and then later sued the defendant once he did. Then in this situation equitable estoppel would be granted to the defendant.
5. Promissory Estoppel– This doctrine arises when a party by words, action or conduct makes legally binding promises to the other party and then the other party acted upon such promise, the one who made the promise cannot revert back to his previous position. He must concede to the existence of this legal relationship subject to the representation he made. Promissory estoppel is mainly to stop the promisor from arguing that the promise made should not be legally upheld or enforced.

        Concept of Res judicata

 The concept of res judicata is adopted from common law. Doctrine of res judicata is one of the oldest doctrine in the world. Doctrine of res judicata is enshrined under § 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. This doctrine means that no court will have jurisdiction to take the fresh matters or issue which are already judged or settled by the same parties. Also, any court will not take case and issue between the same parties under the same title and matter which have already been delt or settled by the competent court. When the court find such issues which are already been settled by some competent court then the court has the power to dispose of the case by granting a decree of Res Judicata.  The main objective of doctrine of Res Judicata is to end the litigation and not to harass the same person again and again.

The concept of Res Judicata not only restricted to Civil Procedure Code but also applied to Administrative law, Constitutional law and Criminal law. Res Judicata rule is mainly based on public policy as it is originated three legal maxim, which are as follow:

• Nemo debet lis vaxari pro eadem causa-this maxim means that no individual should be harassed, contested or annoyed twice for the same cause.
• Interest republicae ut sit finis litium– this maxim means that it is in the interest of the state to avoid multiplicity of suits or that there should be an end of litigation; and
• Re judicata pro veritate occipitur– this maxim means that the decision of the court should be considered as true and correct.

Following are the essential to be satisfied for Res Judicata:

• There must be two suits one is the previously decided suit and other is subsequent suit.
• Parties of the former and the later suit must be same or any of their claim must be same.
• The suit must be finally settled between the parties.
• The former suit must be decided by any of the competent court.
• The title of the parties in the former as well as in Subsequent suit must be same.

Difference between Estoppel and Res Judicata

• Estoppel is mentioned under § 115 of the Indian Evidence Act. It provides that when a person by his act, conduct or declaration does something that the other party or the opposite party believes it to be true and on the basis of such act, alter his position, then the former person cannot change his position.

Whereas, Res Judicata is mentioned under § 11 of the Civil Procedure Act. Res Judicata is also known as the rule of conclusiveness of a decision by the court of law. Res Judicata bars the same parties who reopens the same case with the same subject matter before the court and their case is settled or the court of law has already decided that particular case and there is no appeal pending before any competent court. This doctrine generally aims to end the litigation and avoid the harassment, expenses of the parties.

• The point of origination of estoppel is originated from the act of the parties. Whereas, the res judicata originates from the decision or the judgement given by any competent court.
• The reason for the development or the bases of estoppel is the principle of equity, which means to avoid the multiplicity of representations. Whereas, in res judicata the reason for the development or the bases is public policy, which means to avoid multiplicity of suits.
• Estoppel is a rule of evidence that disables the party to speak further, whereas res judicata removes the jurisdiction of the court, to take the same case again.
• In the lines of prohibitory values of both, estoppel prohibits a person from saying one thing which he has said before or prohibits the person from averring multiple things. Whereas res judicata prohibits a person saying the same thing in further litigations.

Case law of doctrine of estoppel-Satnam Gowda vs Beherampur University 1990 SC 107 1990 (3) SCC 23[4]

It is a special leave appeal against the order dated 30th July, 1987 of the High Court of Orissa. The appellant has passed his M.A. examination in July, 1981 securing in the aggregate 364 marks out of 900 marks, i.e., more than 40 per cent of the total marks. In 1983, he secured admission in Ganjam Law College for three-years Law Course. There is no dispute that at the time he took admission. The appellant completed his first year course known as the “Pre-Law Course” and in 1984 was promoted to the second year course known as the “Intermediate Law Course”. In 1985, he appeared for the Pre-Law and Inter-Law examination held by the Berhampur University to which the Ganjam Law College is affiliated. He gave the said examination and in the same year he was admitted to the Final Law course in the same College. It appears that although he was admitted to the Final Law classes, his results for the Pre-Law and Inter-Law examinations were not declared. The appellant made representations to the Bar Council of India University. On October 30, 1986, the University replied that since the appellant had secured less than 39.5 per cent marks in his M.A. degree examination, he was not eligible for admission to the Law Course. On November 11, 1986, the appellant made a representation that he has secured more than 40% marks. On November 14, 1986, the Chairman of the Board of Studies and Deputy Registrar of the University pointing out that the Board of Studies in its meeting held on October 29, 1986 had recommended that those students who had passed their M.A. examination and had secured more than 40 per cent of the total marks and even though they had secured less than 20 per cent marks in any one of the papers in the said examination, should be considered eligible

Held- There was no requirements of any percentage of marks for postgraduates. There was no Fraud or miss-representation on the part of the candidate.

Case law of doctrine of res judicata-Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin debi[5]

Facts- In this case, a landlord won a decree against the tenants for expelling from the property but was not able to get the possession and later the act of Calcutta Thikka Tenancy came into force. An application was made by the tenants under § 28 of the same act saying they were thikka tenants and the Munsiff ruled they were not and decree was not cancelled. When the revision came into place the law and the amendment of the act omitting § 28 had already come forward. The court saw § 1 clause 2 to see whether application under § 28 was still alive and held the applicants were thikka tenants, accepted the revision application and leave the case for Munsiff to decide according to law. Munsiff took back the earlier decree after remand. High court then rejected the landlord’s application against munsiff’s order and his question of applicability of § 28 was unsuccessful as the judge held there was res judicata between the parties.

Issue – Does the fact that in former stage a court has decided a matter in one way and no appeal has been taken thereafter and a higher court at later stage of the litigation consider the same matter again?

Held- An interlocutory order which did not terminate the proceedings and which had not been appealed from either because no appeal was present, could be challenged in an appeal from the final order. Remand was an interlocutory judgement which did not terminate the proceedings and so the correctness of it can challenge in an appeal from the final order.

[1] The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 115 (India)

[2] Ibid.

[3] Supra note 1

[4] 1990 AIR 1075, 1990 SCR (2) 273

[5] 1960 AIR 941, 1960 SCR (3) 590