‘X’ owns a piece of land over which ‘Y’ has no right. But ‘Y’ builds a house on it ‘X’ keeps quiet and after the building is completed sues for its demolition. Discuss whether ‘X’ can be estopped from asserting his right.

Facts of the Case

‘X’ is the lawful owner of a piece of land. ‘Y’ has no legal right, title, or interest in the said land. Despite this, ‘Y’ proceeds to construct a house on X’s land.

During the course of construction, X remains silent, raises no objection, and does not assert his ownership rights. After the completion of the house, X files a suit seeking demolition of the building, asserting his title over the land.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether X’s silence and inaction amount to acquiescence?
2. Whether the doctrine of estoppel applies to prevent X from asserting his ownership rights?
3. Whether X is barred under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 from claiming demolition?

Legal Principles Covered to Support Case Proceedings and Judgements

A. Doctrine of Estoppel – Section 115, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 115 provides:

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 to deny the truth of that thing.

Essential elements:

1. Representation by conduct or omission
2. Intention or knowledge
3. Reliance by the other party
4. Change of position by the other party

B. Estoppel by Acquiescence

• Acquiescence means tacit or passive consent.
• Where a landowner knowingly allows another to build on his land without objection, he may be estopped from later asserting strict legal rights.
• Estoppel operates as a rule of evidence, not as a rule of substantive law.

C. Judicial Principles

1. B. L. Sreedhar v. K. M. Munireddy (2003)
   • The Supreme Court held that acquiescence amounts to estoppel when a person stands by and allows another to incur expenditure.
2. Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India
   • Silence can amount to representation when there is a duty to speak.
3. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh
   • One who allows another to act to his detriment cannot later deny the representation.

D. Limitations of Estoppel

• Estoppel cannot confer title where none exists.
• However, it can prevent enforcement of rights in an inequitable manner.
• Courts may grant equitable relief instead of demolition, such as compensation.

E. Application to the Present Case

• X had knowledge of construction and remained silent.
• Y acted to his detriment relying on X’s silence.
• X’s conduct amounts to estoppel by acquiescence under Section 115.

Possible Judgement

The Court is likely to hold that:

1. X’s silence during construction amounts to acquiescence.
2. X, having allowed Y to alter his position, is estopped under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 from demanding demolition.
3. X may be entitled to alternative relief, such as compensation or adjustment of equities.
4. The suit for demolition is liable to be dismissed on grounds of estoppel.

Final Conclusion

Yes, ‘X’ can be estopped from asserting his right to seek demolition due to estoppel by acquiescence under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A person who knowingly stands by and allows another to act to his detriment cannot later assert strict legal rights to cause injustice.

About lawgnan

If you’re preparing for law exams, working on case briefs, or practicing as a legal professional, understanding doctrines like estoppel by acquiescence is essential. Visit Lawgana.in to access expertly crafted legal notes, case summaries, conceptual explanations, and evidence law analysis designed for students, advocates, and judiciary aspirants. Our platform offers simplified legal concepts, updated case laws, and exam-oriented content to help you master Indian Evidence Act topics with clarity. Stay ahead in your legal journey—explore more detailed notes, structured answers, and practical legal insights only on Lawgana.in.