https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169577 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. en-us Thu, 05 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Apr 2015 10:38:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169577 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 05 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169577