LAW OF EVIDENCE 571
Illus. (2) Munnoo Lal vs. Lalla Choonee Lal.
1. I.A. 144
Reep Singh was in debt but possessed considerable Estate. M had been his Banker. On 9th October 1863 M obtained a mortgage from R of a property to secure a debt of Rs. 20,000 owed by R. On 9th August 1863 R sold the same property to C. When negotiations for the purchase took place between R and C, M was present and took part in same and in answer to inquiries by C gave him to believe that he had no lien upon the Estate.
In 1868 M filed a suit against C to enforce the payment of his mortgage bond. He was estopped.
This is also a case of active misrepresentation.
B. Representation may be innocent misrepresentation
Illus. Gould vs. The Bacup Local Board.
(1881)50 L.J.(M.C.)44.
Certain premises belonging to Gould were kept in a very insanitary condition. The Board asked him to do certain improvements which he refused to do. The Board then served a noice upon him staring that if he did not carry out the improvements within a given time the Board would execute them.
There were two modes of recovering the expenses which were prescribed by the Act, one was by Section 213 and another by Section 240. Section 213 allowed the Board to recover them by additions to the local rate levied by the Board and Section 240 allowed them to recover them independently in lump sum. In the notice served upon Gould it was stated that the recovery would be under Section 213. But in the suit the Board sought to recover the amount as provided by section 240. The Board was estopped. This is a case of innocent misrepresentation.
(2) Representation may be by words or may be by silence. Silence under certain circumstances may be eloquent and may amount to a representation as good and as real as is made by the spoken word.
But every case of silence cannot be taken as equivalent to speech. Because the law does not require a person to speak out what is in his mind on each and every occasion. The law requires