Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. So far as the equitable principle of estoppel is concerned, it has also no application to the present case. It is well settled that equity cannot override the provisions of a statute and there cannot be estoppel against the statute. The matter came up for consideration before the Privy Council in Ariff v. Jadunath Majumdar, 58 IA 91-AIR 1931 PC 79. Lord Russell of Killowan, while delivering the judgment of the Board, observed (at page 104) as follows:

"Their Lordships do not understand the dicta to mean that equity will hold people bound as if a contract existed, where no contract was in fact made; nor do they understand them to mean that equity can override the provision of a statute and (where no registered document exists and no registrable document can be procured) confer upon a person a right which the statute enacts shall be conferred only by a registered instrument."

The above principle laid down by the Privy Council has been consistently followed in India since then. The law required here the registration of the deed, Exhibit A-1, for the transference of title from Jadu Mandal to the persons named in it even if it assumed that the document evidences a family settlement. As no registered document was procured, the persons claiming under the document cannot be said to have acquired title even though there was no such instrument. Mr. Ghosal has drawn our attention to the observation made by Mukherji and Bose, JJ., in Khantamoyee Devi v. Hridaya-nanda Bhattacharjee, 48 CLJ 489 at p. 494 = (AIR 1929 Cal 149) that -