Leapinc Case: R.S. MADNAPPA v CHANDRAMMA* (AIR 1965 SC 1812) In this case, in a suit for possession of plaintiff's half share of certain properties, a decree was passed in favour of the defendant No. 1 (brother of plaintiff) with respect to the other half share. In appeal by the other defendants, it was contended that defendant No. 1 was estopped from claiming half share (decreed), because:@ he did not reply to a notice by the plaintiff asking ‘him to join her in filing the suit, (i) he wrote a letter to his step mother disclaiming interest in suit property, and, he attested a will executed by his father disposing of suit properties. ‘The Supreme Court held that: @ the conduct in not replying to notice does not mean there was implied admission (or acquiescence) that he had no interest in properties, justifying an inference of estoppel, (@_ when the father (defendant No. 2) ksiew about true legal position that he was not the owner of properties and his possession was on behalf of plaintiff and defendant No.1, the defendant No. 1’s letter to stepmother could not have created an erroneous or mistaken belief in father’s mind about his title to the suit properties, Gi similarly, the reason of conduct of defendant No. 1 in attesting his father’s will could not justify an inference of estoppel. ‘Thus, in this case, as the facts are known to both the parties, the doctrine of estoppel cannot be invoked. Sec. 115 does not apply to‘asase where the statement relied upon is made to a person who knows the real facts and is not misled by the untrue statement. ‘Also, in the present case, there is no detriment to the other party by the actions of defendant No. 1.] | Sections 116-417 © Sections 116 and 117 are illustrative of the principle of estoppel laid down in Sec. 115. These two sections deal with estoppels in specific cases. '