LAW OF EVIDENCE - LAW 952

CONTINUOUS INTERNAL ASSESSMENT - III

CASE LAW ANALYSIS

TOPIC: ESTOPPLE

SANATAN GAUDA V. BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

1990 AIR 1075

Submitted to:
Dr. Karan Singh Chouhan,
Assistant Professor
School of Law,
CHRIST (Deemed To Be University), Bengaluru.

Submitted by:
B Rithika Kamath
2050448,
9 BBA LLB A.

1
CASE-LAW ANALYSIS:

Case name: Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University and Ors.

Citation: 1990 AIR 1075
Date of Judgment: 02.04.1990
Bench: Justice Sawant P.B and Justice Sharma

Introduction:

This case concerns the interpretation of admission regulations for law courses at Berhampur
University and whether a postgraduate student was eligible for admission to a 3-year LLB
program. The Supreme Court of India delivered this judgment on April 2, 1990, overturning
the decision of the Orissa High Court and ruling in favor of the appellant student. From the
evidence law perspective, this case is an important ruling for the concept of “Estoppel.”

Facts of the Case:

Sanatan Gauda [“Appellant”] passed his M.A. examination in July 1981, securing 364 marks
out of 900 (over 40%). In 1983, he was admitted to the 3-year LLB course at Ganjam Law
College, affiliated to Berhampur University. He submitted his M.A. marksheet and degree
certificate with his admission application. He completed the first year "Pre-Law Course" in
1984 and was promoted to the second year "Intermediate Law Course". In 1985, he appeared
for the Pre-Law and Inter-Law examinations conducted by Berhampur University. He was also
admitted to the Final year of the LLB course. However, the University did not declare his Pre-
Law and Inter-Law results, claiming he was not eligible for admission to the law course as per
University regulations. The appellant made representations to various authorities but to no
avail. He then filed a writ petition in the Orissa High Court challenging the non-declaration of
his results and the University's refusal to allow him to appear for the final examination. The
High Court dismissed his petition on July 30, 1987. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme
Court of India.

Issues:

1. Whether the appellant was eligible for admission to the 3-year LLB course as per
Berhampur University regulations?

2
 2. Whether the University was estopped from denying the appellant's eligibility after
allowing him to study for two years and appear for examinations?

Laws Applicable:

1. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• Section 3: Definition of “Proved”

• Section 115: Principle of Estoppel
• Sections 21-23: Admissions
• Sections 101-102: Burden of Proof

2. Berhampur University Regulations

• Chapter VIII, Regulation 1: Qualifications for admission to the Law course

• Chapter V, Regulation 10: Marks for passing M.A., M.Com., and M.Sc.
examinations

Analysis of Legal Principles and Application:

1. Interpretation of University Regulations:

The Supreme Court analyzed Regulation 1 of Chapter VIII of Berhampur University

Regulations, which lays down qualifications for admission to the LLB course. The Court
interpreted that: The requirement of 40% or more than 39.5% marks in aggregate applies only
to graduate-level degrees (BA, BSc, etc.). For candidates with postgraduate degrees, there is
no specific marks requirement - it is sufficient that they have passed the postgraduate
examination. The Court rejected the University's contention that even postgraduate students
need to secure 40% or more aggregate marks for LLB admission.

Therefore, the Court held that the appellant satisfied the eligibility criteria for LLB admission
even under this regulation.

2. Concept of Proof under the Indian Evidence Act:

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act defines "Proved" as: "A fact is said to be proved when,
after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its

3
existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case,
to act upon the supposition that it exists."

In this case, the Supreme Court examined the evidence of the appellant's academic
qualifications:

• His M.A. marksheet showing 364/900 marks (over 40%) and

• University regulations on admission criteria;

The Court concluded that these facts were sufficient to prove the appellant's eligibility for
admission to the law course. This demonstrates how the standard of proof in civil matters is
based on the preponderance of probabilities, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt as in
criminal cases.

3. Estoppel under the Indian Evidence Act:

Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 121 of BSA) deals with Estoppel. It states:
“When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted
another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his
representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or
his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.”

The Supreme Court applied this principle against Berhampur University:

• The University had permitted the appellant's admission;

• It allowed him to study for two years;
• It issued admit cards for examinations;
• It permitted him to appear for exams and enter the final year.

The Court held that these actions estopped the University from later claiming the appellant was
ineligible. This illustrates how estoppel prevents a party from taking contradictory positions to
the detriment of another who has relied on the party's initial stance.

4. Documentary Evidence and Admission:

Sections 21-23 of the Indian Evidence Act deal with admissions. In this case, the University's
issuance of admit cards and permission to appear for exams were treated as admissions of the

4
appellant's eligibility. This shows how actions and documents can constitute admissions
binding on a party.

5. Burden of Proof:

Section 101-102 of the Act discuss the burden of proof. Initially, the burden was on the
appellant to prove his eligibility. By producing his marksheet and showing compliance with
regulations, he discharged this burden. The onus then shifted to the University to prove why,
despite its actions, the appellant should be considered ineligible.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed Berhampur University to declare the
appellant's Pre-Law, Inter-Law, and Final Law examination results. The court held the
following:

1. Postgraduate students do not need to meet the 40% aggregate marks criteria applicable
to graduate students for LLB admission.
2. The appellant satisfied eligibility requirements under both relevant University
regulations.
3. The University was estopped from denying the appellant's eligibility at such a late stage
after allowing him to study and appear for exams.
4. Educational institutions should frame admission rules clearly to avoid ambiguity and
potential harm to students.

This judgment clarified the interpretation of Berhampur University's LLB admission

regulations, particularly distinguishing between requirements for graduate and postgraduate
applicants. It also reinforced the principle that universities cannot arbitrarily deny a student's
eligibility after allowing them to pursue a course of study for an extended period.

5
References:

1. Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University and Ors., 1990 AIR 1075, 1990 SCR (2) 273.
2. Berhampur University Regulations - Chapter VIII, Regulation 1 and Chapter V,
Regulation 10
3. Bar Council of India Resolution No. 123/1984 dated October 30, 1984.