D bought a property from X at a discounted price on the grounds that X would have a lease for life. D then got a mortgage from P (without X’s knowledge) and defaulted D had fraudulently told P that the property was vacant and P had inspected it and come to that conclusion. P sued D and X for possession. CA held that since X did have a lease (exclusive possession etc made out), P could not succeed against X.
Nourse LJ: Where A is the legal owner and gets a mortgage loan from B, and C, who has a beneficial interest, gives C reasonable grounds for believing that he consents, C is estopped from claiming a beneficial interest that overrides that of the mortgagee. See Henning and Cann. However, here there was no consent.
