Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2016 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1595 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTDoctrine of Estoppel - Who is real landlord? - eviction suit - whether the previous statement made by the petitioner that Mrs. Aysha Moosa Haji was not his landlady, but, in fact, Mr. Mohammad Shafi was his landlord, can be read against the petitioner in the present case where he has denied Mr. Mohammad Shafi as being his landlord or not? - HELD THAT:- Estoppel is a collective name given to a group of legal doctrines whereby a person is prevented from making assertions that are contradictory to their prior position on certain matters before the court; thereby, the person is said to be "estopped". Judicial estoppel is said to be parcel of doctrine of equitable estoppel. Judicial estoppel binds a party to his/her previous judicial declaration, such as allegations contained in a lawsuit, complaint, written statement, or testimony given under oath. The object of judicial estoppel is to preserve the integrity of the courts, and to uphold the sanctity of the oath. Under judicial estoppel a party to a litigation cannot be permitted to take contradictory stand and to change its position from the previous litigation to the subsequent one. For, a litigant cannot be permitted to take a court out for a ride by his shifting stand. Admittedly, in the present case the petitioner has changed his position from the previous suit vis-à-vis the issue as to who is the landlord? In the previous suit, the petitioner claimed that Mr. Mohammad Shafi is his landlord; in the subsequent suit, filed by Mr. Mohammad Shafi, the petitioner claims that Mr. Shafi is not his landlord. Obviously, the petitioner cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold simultaneously. He cannot change his position under the doctrine of Judicial Estoppel. Litigants, like the petitioner, cannot be allowed to pull the wool over the eyes of the court. Considering the definition of "landlord", the petitioner cannot claim that Mr. Shafi is not his landlord. Since the rent has been paid to Mr. Shafi, he is deemed to be the landlord under the Act. This court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order - Petition dismissed.
|