Case: SIRDAR K.B.RAMACHANDRA RAJ URS (DEAD) THROUGH LRS Vs. SARAH C URS

Court has held that estoppel by conduct could not arise when a person concerned knew the right position relating to the title in property in his possession, he could not plead that he was induced to hold an erroneous belief because of the conduct of real owner of that property. This court has observed thus: 6. We will consider the question of estoppel first. The conduct of the first defendant from which the learned counsel wants us to draw the inference of estoppel consists of her attitude when she was served with a notice by the plaintiff, her general attitude respecting Bangalore properties as expressed in the letter dated 17th January 1941, written by her to her stepmother and the attestation by her and her husband on 3rd October 1944, of the will executed on 25th January 1941 by Maddanappa. In the notice dated 26th January 1948, by the plaintiffs lawyer to the first defendant it was stated that the plaintiff and the first defendant were joint owners of the suit properties which were in possession of their father and requested for the cooperation of the first defendant in order to effect the division of the properties. A copy of this notice was sent to Maddanappa, and he sent a reply to it to the plaintiffs lawyers. The first defendant, however, sent no reply at all. We find it difficult to construe the conduct of the first defendant in not replying to the notice and is not cooperating with the plaintiff in instituting a suit for obtaining possession of the properties as justifying the inference of estoppel. It does not mean that she impliedly admitted that she had no interest in the properties. It is true that in Ex. 15, which is a letter sent by her on 17th January 1941, to her stepmother she has observed thus: I have no desire whatsoever in respect of the properties which are at Bangalore. Everything belongs to my father. He has the sole authority to do anything…. We give our consent to anything done by our father. We will not do anything. But even these statements cannot assist the appellants because admittedly, the father knew the true legal position. That is to say; the father knew that these properties belonged to Puttananjamma and that he had no authority to deal with these properties. No doubt, in his written statement, Maddanappa had set up a case that the properties belonged to him by virtue of the declaration made by Puttananjamma at the time of her death, but that case has been negatived by the courts below. The fathers possession must, therefore, be deemed to have been, to his knowledge, on behalf of the plaintiff and the first defendant. There was thus no possibility of an erroneous belief about his title being created in the mind of Maddanappa because of what the first defendant had said in her letter to her stepmother. 7. Insofar as the attestation of the will is concerned, the appellants position is no better. This will purports to make a disposition of the suit properties along with other properties by Maddanappa in favour of Defendants 3 to 8. The attestation of the will by the first defendant and her husband, would no doubt affix them with the knowledge of what Maddanappa was doing, but it cannot operate as estoppel against them and in favour of Defendants 3 to 8 or even in favour of Maddanappa. The will could take effect only upon the death of Maddanappa and, therefore, no interest in the property had at all accrued to Defendants 3 to 8, even on the date of the suit. So far as Maddanappa is concerned, he, as already stated, knew the true position and, therefore, could not say that an erroneous belief about his title to the properties was created in his mind by reason of the conduct of the first defendant and her husband in attesting the document. Apart from that, there is nothing on the record to show that by reason of the conduct of the first defendant Maddanappa altered his position to his disadvantage. 8. Mr. Venkatarangaiengar, however, says that subsequent to the execution of the will, he had effected further improvements in the properties and for this purpose, spent his own moneys. According to him, he would not have done so in the absence of assurance like the one given by the first defendant and her husband to the effect that they had no objection to the disposition of the suit properties by him in any way he chose to make it. The short answer to this is that Maddanappa, on his own allegations, was not only in possession and enjoyment of these properties ever since the death of Putananjamma but had made improvements in the properties even before the execution of the will. In these circumstances, it is clear that the provisions of Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, which contain the law of estoppel by representation, do not help him. 22. Thus, it is clear that there was no possibility of erroneous beliefs in the mind of the plaintiffs as to title position in the property. No doubt about it that defendant No.1 has acted as a power of attorney, but at the same time, did not act in his capacity as the owner of the property. The ownership of K.B. Ramchandra Raj Urs was known to the plaintiffs. In spite of that the plaintiffs have not set up the case to bind the share of K.B. Ramchandra Raj Urs. They have not pleaded in the plaint that K.B Ramchandra Raj Urs owned the property. There is no whisper as to the title of K.B. Ramchandra Raj Urs in the plaint. They needed to plead the facts to attract the plea of estoppel. That has not been done. Thus, the agreement which had been executed was not concerning share of defendant No.1, but of late K. Basavaraja Urs as his power of attorney.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]16. The concurrent findings are recorded as to receipt of consideration and execution of the agreement to sell. There is no doubt about it that M.P. Chandrakanta Raj Urs (Plaintiff No.2) was earlier a counsel and legal advisor to K. Basavaraja Urs, but when the agreement had been executed, he was not a lawyer and became a Judge of the High Court. There are concurrent findings recorded concerning the execution of the agreement, and it has been rightly found established that signatures were not obtained on blank papers. There is concurrent finding recorded by the courts below that consideration has been paid. Thus, no case for interference is made out in the aforesaid findings17. The courts below have found that correspondence was made by defendants No.1 to obtain Income Tax clearance. The suit has been held not to be barred by limitation. Given the facts and material placed on record, no interference is called for with those findings also19. The statement of plaintiff No. 2 has been pointed out, indicating that he was aware that there were equal shares of K. Basavaraja Urs and K. B. Ramchandra Raj Urs (defendant No.1) in the property. Thus, plaintiff No.2 cannot plead that they were induced by erroneous belief while entering into agreement, by the conduct of defendant No.1. The plea of estoppel is, thus, not attracted. There is no proper foundation in the pleading regarding the plea of estoppel. The submission raised by learned counsel on behalf of respondent is that defendant No.1 acted as power of attorney holder of his father and received the sale consideration also. As such he is bound by the plea of estoppel to contend to the contraryA bare reading of the agreement described above makes it clear that agreement is between late K. Basavaraja Urs through power of attorney, K.B. Ramchandra Raj Urs. The Vendors is mentioned as K. Basavaraja Urs and not K.B. Ramchandra Raj Urs. Thus, it cannot be said that K.B. Ramchandra Raj Urs had executed the agreement on his behalf, concerning his share in the property. There is no whisper about the same in the agreement. The position mentioned above may indicate that plaintiffs were misled by the Power of Attorney holder that only late K. Basavaraja Urs was the exclusive owner of the property. When we consider the statement of M.P Chandrakanta Raj Urs (Plaintiff No.2), it clearly indicates that he was well aware of the fact that Princess Leelavathi owned the property and upon her death the property devolved upon, in equal shares and he was aware of the other sale deeds executed (Exhs. P 43, P-44, P-45, P-46). It is clear that plaintiff No.2 was aware as to the extant title of K.B. Ram Chandra Raj Urs in the property and also the fact that it was a joint family property. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have not taken the plea of estoppel, and now the case was set up that property had been sold by defendant No.1 in his capacity without any such plea in the plaint. Thus, plaintiff No.2 was well aware of the fact as to the title of K.B. Ramchandra Raj Urs in the property and that late K. Basavaraja Urs did not exclusively own the property21. The plea of estoppel in view the decision of this court in R.S. Madanappa (deceased) v. Chandramma & Anr., (supra) is not attracted, in which the Court has held that estoppel by conduct could not arise when a person concerned knew the right position relating to the title in property in his possession, he could not plead that he was induced to hold an erroneous belief because of the conduct of real owner of that property22. Thus, it is clear that there was no possibility of erroneous beliefs in the mind of the plaintiffs as to title position in the property. No doubt about it that defendant No.1 has acted as a power of attorney, but at the same time, did not act in his capacity as the owner of the property. The ownership of K.B. Ramchandra Raj Urs was known to the plaintiffs. In spite of that the plaintiffs have not set up the case to bind the share of K.B. Ramchandra Raj Urs. They have not pleaded in the plaint that K.B Ramchandra Raj Urs owned the property. There is no whisper as to the title of K.B. Ramchandra Raj Urs in the plaint. They needed to plead the facts to attract the plea of estoppel. That has not been done. Thus, the agreement which had been executed was not concerning share of defendant No.1, but of late K. Basavaraja Urs as his power of attorney.