Estoppel by conduct barred a later challenge to re-granted land transfers after acquiescence and delayed objection.

Estoppel under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act can arise from conduct, silence where there is a duty to speak, and deliberate inaction when another party has altered position in reliance on that behaviour. The Supreme Court applied that principle to re-granted village office land, holding that the appellants' long delay, lack of timely challenge, family context, and awareness or participation in the transactions were inconsistent with later attempts to impeach the alienation and sale deeds. Although a re-grant to one family member may enure to the benefit of the family, that general principle did not override the factual finding of acquiescence. On that basis, the challenge to the respondents' title failed, and examination of Explanation 6 to Section 11 CPC was unnecessary.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were precluded by estoppel and acquiescence from challenging the alienation and the subsequent sale transactions relating to the re-granted land.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the effect of the parties' conduct after re-grant of the village office lands. The Court held that estoppel under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not confined to express statements and may arise from conduct, silence where there is a duty to speak, and deliberate inaction when another party has altered position on that faith. On the facts, the long course of litigation, the absence of timely challenge, the family setting, and the participation or awareness of the relevant transactions showed conduct inconsistent with the later attack on the sales. The Court also accepted the settled legal position that a re-grant to one member of a family enures to the benefit of the family, but that principle did not displace the factual finding that the appellants had by their own conduct allowed the transactions to stand. In view of the finding on estoppel, it was unnecessary to examine the applicability of Explanation 6 to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Conclusion: The appellants were barred by estoppel and acquiescence from questioning the alienation and sale transactions, and the challenge to the respondents' title failed.

Final Conclusion: The judgment affirms that a party who, by conduct or silence, permits another to act to their detriment cannot later impeach the transaction, and the appeals therefore did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Estoppel may arise from conduct, acquiescence, or silence where there is a duty to speak, and it bars a party from later asserting a contrary claim after another has altered position on the faith of that conduct.

---