https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191977 Estoppel by conduct under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act requires a representation that induces mistaken belief and a resulting detrimental change of position; where the alleged representee knew the true title, silence or attestation does not create estoppel or acquiescence, and a true owner cannot be saddled with improvement costs absent consent. The commentary also explains that non-transposition of a defendant as plaintiff is a curable procedural irregularity under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, and should not defeat substantive relief where complete justice can still be done. It further notes that future mesne profits may be awarded under Order XX Rule 2 CPC, with Section 99 and Order XLI Rule 33 limiting interference on technical objections. en-us Fri, 05 Mar 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 May 2017 13:01:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191977 Estoppel by conduct under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act requires a representation that induces mistaken belief and a resulting detrimental change of position; where the alleged representee knew the true title, silence or attestation does not create estoppel or acquiescence, and a true owner cannot be saddled with improvement costs absent consent. The commentary also explains that non-transposition of a defendant as plaintiff is a curable procedural irregularity under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, and should not defeat substantive relief where complete justice can still be done. It further notes that future mesne profits may be awarded under Order XX Rule 2 CPC, with Section 99 and Order XLI Rule 33 limiting interference on technical objections. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 05 Mar 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191977