Introduction

Once a civil suit has been decided, no one can file another with the same subject
matter and between the same parties. The concept of Res Judicata prevents this.
Estoppel is a concept that is similar to this. Due to the similarities between the
two doctrines, the concepts of Res Judicata and Estoppel are frequently
confused. These two terms are sometimes used incorrectly interchangeably. It is
critical to understand the distinctions between these two concepts, mainly if one
is a member of the legal profession. The purpose of this article is to explain the
various concepts of both terms as well as the differences between them.

What is Res Judicata

Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code defines the doctrine of Res Judicata.
The doctrine of Res Judicata states that the case has already been decided. It
means that no court will have the authority to try any new case or issue that has
already been resolved in a previous case between the same parties. Furthermore,
the Court will not hear suits or issues between parties who are litigating under
the same title and matter that a competent court has already decided. As long as
no other appeals are pending, a court can grant a decree of Res Judicata and
dismiss a suit or issue that the Court has already decided.

Suppose the competent court has already decided the matter. In that case, this
doctrine holds that no one has the right to reopen it with another suit. As a
result, decisions made in one suit between the same parties are binding on all
others. As a rule, the courts will apply the principle of Res Judicata when issues
that were directly and substantially at issue between two parties in an earlier suit
also appear in the current one.
For example, if only a portion of the property was at issue in the prior suit, but
the entire property of the parties is at issue in the present or subsequent suit, the
Court will grant a decree of Res Judicata. TheCourt held in Mathura Prasad
Bajoo Jaiswal and Ors. v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy (1971 AIR 2355) that "the
matter in issue" in Section 11 C.P.C. refers to the right litigated between the
parties, i.e., the facts on which the right is claimed or repudiated, and the law
applicable to the resolution of that issue. The issue must have been substantially
an issue in a previous suit, according to Section 11. In the former suit, however,
determining whether an issue is substantial or collateral may be difficult. The
Supreme Court of India held in the case of Ragho Prasad Gupta v. Krishna
Poddar (A.I.R. 1969 SC 316) that a mere expression of opinion on a question
that is not in issue could not be treated as res judicata. In the case of
Mavelikkara Ex-Servicemen's Multipurpose Co-operative Society v. Parvathy
Amma Rajamma (Civil Revision Petition No. 2917 Of 1983), the Kerala High
Court held that the identity of the subject matter under Res-Judicata is to
identify the subject matter not only in a physical sense but also in a legal sense.
In Krishan Kumar v. Vimala Sehgal (I.L.R. 1976 Delhi 238), the Delhi High
Court held that if the circumstances change, a second petition for own
occupation can be filed even if the Rent Controller rejected the landlord's first
application.

In the case of Vasudevan and Saraswati v. Jagat Guru Shankaracharya, the

Allahabad High Court stated that "same title" means "same capacity." The
question is whether the litigant is the same or a different person in law. The
decision in the previous suit does not serve as res judicata if the same person is
a party in a different character.
Similarly, because the property is identical, the subsequent suit will not be res
judicata if the rights claimed to differ. As a result, the title refers to the party
suing or being sued rather than the cause of action. In Muneesh Kumar
Agnihotri and others v. Lalli Prasad Gupta (A.I.R. 1989 All 202), the Allahabad
High Court held that the doctrine of res judicata would apply only when an
issue was directly and substantially an issue in the previous suit between the
same parties or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim to
litigate under the same title.

What is Estoppel

The provisions relating to the Doctrine of Estoppel are laid out in Part III,
Chapter VII of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, containing Sections 115 to 117.
Estoppel of tenant and licensee of persons in possession is addressed in Section
116 of the said Act. When one person, either by his act or omission or by
declaration, has persuaded another person to believe something to be true and
act on it, then he or his representative cannot deny the truth of that thing later in
the suit or the proceedings, according to Section 115 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872. In layman's terms, estoppel means that one cannot contradict, deny,
or declare false a prior statement made in Court. Res judicata is a similar
concept.

The parties, their representatives, executors, and others are all bound by the
decision of the Court once it has been rendered. This doctrine prevents the
parties to a case from bringing a new suit in the same case or disputing the facts
of the case after the Court has rendered its decision. In the case of Canada and
Dominion Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Ltd.,
1947 A.C. 46 at p. 56 (P.C.), it was held that the legislature's intent was similar
in that both of these provisions were enacted into their respective statutes. The
doctrine of res judicata is frequently referred to as a branch of estoppel law.

In the case of Sardar Chand Singh v. Commissioner; Burdwan Division (A.I.R.

1958 Cal 420),As a result of his alleged involvement in a gruesome murder case
and other cases, Chand Singh, the Managing Director of Messrs., was denied a
revolver licence. Chand did not appeal the District Magistrate's decision that he
could not hold a revolver licence due to public order and safety concerns. This
gave rise to the reasonable assumption that he had agreed to it. When he later
applied to the District Magistrate to have his case reconsidered, he was denied
due to the doctrine of "Estoppel by Conduct." The High Court of Orissa held
inJatindra Prasad Das v. State of Orissa &Ors. (W.P. C 21449/2011)that
Estoppel cannot be used against statutes and statutory provisions. It was also
stated that statutory provisions could not be ignored in any circumstance, even
if there is precedent or a previous administrative decision to support it.

Estoppel by convention occurs when parties to a transaction assume the facts or

the law, according to the case of Republic of India v. India Steam Ship
Company Limited [1998] AC 878. This assumption could be made by both
parties or by one of them. Under this principle, parties to an agreement cannot
deny the assumed facts. It would be unfair and unjust to allow one or more
parties to go back on their assumptions.

The Supreme Court held in Central Airman Selection Board v. Surendra Kumar
Das (A.I.R. 2002 SC 214) that if a person has made a false representation and
induced the authority to act on it, he cannot challenge it on the basis of
promissory estoppel. If the authority discovers that it has been misled, it has the
authority to terminate the agreement. The Court upheld in State of Maharashtra
v. Anita (CA 6132-33/2016) that once a person has been appointed as an
employee under a contract and has accepted all of its terms and conditions, he is
estopped from challenging the term of the appointment later on.

Types of Estoppel:

Estoppel by Record: Estoppel by record is created by the decision of any

competent court. When any court decides finally over a subject then it becomes
conclusive and the parties, their representative, executor, administrator etc
become bound to that decision.

Estoppel by Deed: When any person becomes bound to another person on the
basis of a record regarding few facts, then neither that person nor any person
claiming through him shall be allowed to deny it. or in other words When a
party has entered into an engagement by a deed claiming certain fact, neither he
nor his representatives can contest these facts later.

Estoppel by Conduct: Estoppel by conduct is such estoppel which arises due to

act, conduct or misrepresentation by any party. When any person causes another
person to believe by his words or conduct or encourages them to believe and the
other person acts upon that belief and causes change in their situation, then the
first person is stopped from denying the truthiness of his statements made
earlier.

Equitable Estoppel: Estoppel is a product of equity, therefore the Court will

have to go by equities on both the sides to maintain a balance. A man may be
stopped, not only from giving particular evidence but also depending upon that
particular argument or contention that the rule of equity does not permit
Promissory Estoppel: The history of promissory estoppels can be traced back to
England, derived from the principle of equity. Once a party, by his words or
conduct makes a legally binding promise to another party, if the other party has
acted upon these words or conduct, the one who made the promise or gave
assurance cannot revert back to his previous position.

The Differences between Res Judicata and Estoppel

The Court's final decision is known as res judicata. It forbids the parties from
re-litigating the issues that were or could have been raised in the particular case.
Whereas, issue estoppel is a legal principle that states that even if a court has
made a decision, re-litigation of that issue on a different course of action
involving either of the parties involved in the first case is prohibited. The most
significant distinctions can be summed up as follows: origin, development,
authority, prohibitory value, and binding nature.

The point of origin of res judicata is a court decision in a previous case, while
the origin of estoppel is the act of the parties. Res judicata doctrine was created
to protect public policy by ending the litigation. In contrast,estoppel is based on
equity principles and therefore prohibits multiple representations. Res judicata,
on the other hand, prohibits the filing of multiple lawsuits. In legal terms, res
judicata is a bar to a court's jurisdiction and a fundamental test for bringing a
lawsuit; on the other hand, estoppel is merely a doctrine observed in evidence
that prevents the parties from speaking further. If another court previously
decided on the case, res judicata prevents this Court from taking further action.

On the other hand, estoppel forbids the parties from performing certain acts,
denying what he had previously said. To put it another way, both doctrines have
prohibitory values in that they both forbid people from asserting the same thing
repeatedly in Court. At the same time,estoppel prevents someone from saying
something they've already said, and the consequences have already come as a
result. It was held in Pratima Choudhary v. Kalpana Mukherjee A.I.R. 2014 SC
1304 that the instantaneous alteration of position should be such that requiring
him to return to the original position would be iniquitous.

As a result, the doctrine of estoppel would only apply when the second party
alters his position as a result of the first party's representation in such a way that
it would be unfair to restore the initial position. The effect of res judicata is
binding on both litigants because both parties have approached a subsequent
court for the same matter. Hence, res judicata applies to both parties. When
estoppel is used, a binding effect only applies to the party who made the
previous statement or conduct, and as a result, only that person will be held
responsible for the new course of action. In Supreme Court Employees' Welfare
Assn. v. Union of India A.I.R. 1990 SC 334, the Apex Court stated that
litigation would never end without the rule of res judicata, and the parties would
be subjected to constant trouble, harassment, and expenses. InMaddanappa v.
Chandramma A.I.R. 1965 SC 1812,it was stated that the legislature's goal in
enacting the doctrine of estoppel is to prevent fraud and ensure fairness between
parties by encouraging honesty and good faith. As a result, if one person
misrepresents a fact to another, the rule of estoppel does not apply because the
other person knows the true state of facts and thus could not have been misled
by the misrepresentation.

The Supreme Court observed in Batul Begum v. Hem Chander A.I.R. 1960 All
519 that the rule of constructive res judicata is nothing more than a rule of
estoppel because constructive res judicata is a legal fiction created by the Court
in which the matter in issue is treated as if it might and ought to have been the
matter directly and substantially in issue in a subsequent suit.
Conclusion

Both Res Judicata and Estoppel are concepts that are widely accepted
throughout the world's jurisdictions. As a result, doctrines such as Res Judicata
and Estoppel have gained prominence in Indian law. This doctrine binds Indian
civil courts as well as administrative law and other legislation. Arguments for
and against res judicata are subject to public policy considerations. As a result,
the doctrine of Res Judicata limits a plaintiff's ability to recover damages from
the defendant on the same injury more than once. In contrast, the Doctrine of
Estoppel safeguards people from fraud or misrepresentation. This theory steers
clear of those kinds of situations by holding the offender accountable for his
wrongful actions.