Short Note : The plaintiff-appellant's case in the suit, filed by them out of which this second appeal arises, was that as a result of partition between respondent No. 1 Ambaram and Bhuribai, which took place about thirty years ago, the latter was allotted the suit lands and as such she became its exclusive owner and continued to be in possession as such till she transferred the same in favour of the plaintiff-appellants on 1-12-1959; that by virtue of her adverse possession for more than twelve years. Bhuribai became an absolute owner of these lands and at any rate if she was a limited owner thereof, she perfected her title to the same under section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, which came into force on 17th June, 1956 and, consequently, the plaintiffs have obtained valid title from Bhuribai; that when the defendant-respondents threatened to dispossess the plaintiff appellants from the suit lands by force, they were compelled to file the present suit seeking the relief of declaration of title to the suit lands and permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from disturbing their possession. 2. Admittedly, in the earlier suit filed by the respondent No. 1 against Bhuribai and the appellants, he had come with a clear case of joint ownership of himself with Bhuribai. He had also never disputed the fact that Bhuribai was in exclusive possession of the disputed lands which she sold to the appellants. Admittedly when respondent Ambaram was taken in adoption by her, he was a young boy and was being looked after by his natural father to whom Bhuribai had given certain land for the purpose of cultivation. It is also not in dispute that respondent Ambaram, as her son, was bound to maintain Bhuribai as his mother. Held: Learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the right of a widow under section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, in respect of the property which was in her exclusive possession for her maintenance and that if she continued to be in possession thereof, she became the absolute owner when the Hindu Succession Act came into force in the year 1956. However, he contended that respondent Ambaram had given a wrong admission in the previous suit filed by him & consequently, that he is entitled to resile from that wrong admission and claim himself to be the sole owner of the entire property left by Sawant, after his adoption. However, the clear admission of Ambaram in the present case also that the disputed land was of his mother Bhuribai exclusively for her maintenance, leaves no manner of doubt that she had become the absolute owner thereof, in view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in V. Tulasamma v. V. Sesha Reddi, AIR 197 SC 1944 I am, therefore, of opinion that Bhuribai, being the absolute owner of the disputed lands, had every right to dispose of the same according to her own choice and the disposition in the manner made by her could not, therefore, be said to be illegal or without authority. 3. Admission is one of the best pieces of evidence as has been held in Narayan v. Gopal, AIR 1960 SC 100 . When Ambaram throughout has taken the stand that Bhuribai was a joint owner, he cannot now be permitted to urge that he had given a wrong admission and he is estopped from taking a contrary stand now in this manner. Estoppel does not depend on the motive or knowledges of the matter on the part of the person making the representation. It is not essential that the intention of the person should have been fraudulent or that he should have been acting with full knowledge of the circumstances and not under a mistake or misrepresentation. It is not necessary that there should be a design to mislead. A misrepresentation, even made innocently or mistakenly, may operate as estoppel. Under section 115 of the Evidence Act, 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, he cannot deny the truth of the thing Estoppel is a complex legal notion involving combination of several essential elements, the statement to be acted upon, action on the faith of it, resulting detriment to the actor. To invoke the doctrine of estoppel, three conditions must be satisfied :- (i) representation by a person to another: (ii) the other shall have acted upon the said representation; and (iii) such action shall have been detrimental to the interest of the person to whom the re-presentation has been made AIR 1977 SC 1944 ; AIR 1960 SC 100 and AIR 1955 SC 105 relied on. Appeal allowed.