Maxims
Maxims
Maxims, as Salmond observes, are proverbs of the law and provide useful
means for the expression of leading doctrines of the law in a form which is brief
and intelligible. Although as a matter of fact, these twelve maxims do not go to
the root of equity in as much as some of them are of comparatively recent
origin, yet as Hanbury says, they are the fruits of observation of developed
equitable doctrines and the ideas embodied in them are far older than their
articulate expression.
The subject-matter of Equity can be grouped round the twelve maxims which
embody general principles on which the Court of Chancery exercised its
jurisdiction. They are based upon and derived from those essential
principles of rights and obligations which have a judicial relation with the
events of society. These judicial principles constituting the sources of equitable
doctrines are commonly known as “Maxims of Equity“.
The Maxims of Equity are as follows:
The maxim does not apply where the right in question is a moral one
and is not capable of being judicially enforced. The Court of Equity
only interferes when there is an invasion of legal or equitable rights.
The second limitation is that Equity does not interfere to remedy any
wrong where the right and the remedy, both completely belong to the
domain of the law.
The maxim does not apply where a party has destroyed, lost, or waived
his right to an equitable remedy by his own act or laches.
With these limitations the principle has been developed into the vast range of
equitable jurisdiction which provides following remedies:
Legal remedies for the violation of the legal rights in a more certain,
adequate and complete manner than the law can give;
Equitable remedies for violation of legal rights which the law has no
power to give.
Equity adopts and follows the rules of law in all cases where
applicable.
Equity follows the analogies of Common Law.
Application Of Maxim
The maxims has two-fold application to the subject-matter. The subject matter
may be–
Illustration
The rule of Common Law that where a man died intestate, leaving sons and
daughters and possessed of a free simple estate, the eldest son was entitled to
the whole of the land, was undoubtedly most unfair to the younger sons and the
daughters, but Equity granted them no relief. But if the eldest son had persuaded
his father not to make a will and had promised to share the property with his
brothers and sisters, Equity would have compelled him to fulfill his promise. It
would have been against conscience to allow him to keep the benefit of the legal
estate which he only obtained by reason of his promise. So, while recognising
the legal rule and giving full effect to it, Equity said that this did not conclude
the matter, the circumstances of the son’s promise must also be taken into
consideration, and he must be a trustee of the and for himself and his brothers
and sisters.
Limitation
The maxim applies in both the cases of legal estate and equitable estate
generally, but there are certain cases of exceptions to the general application of
the maxim. In exceptional cases, where an exact legal rule was neither directly
applicable nor capable of being extended on principles of analogy. Equity
processed to administer justice on principles and rules of its own.
Indian Contract Act– Section 19-A of the Indian Contract Act lays down that
“When consent to an agreement is caused by undue influence, the agreement is
a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.
Specific Relief Act– Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 provides that on
adjudging the recession of a contract, the court may require the party to whom
such relief is granted to make any compensation to the other party, which justice
may require.
Transfer Of Property Act– Section 35 of the TPA lays down that whoever
takes a benefit under an instrument must accept or reject the instrument as a
whole.
Indian Trusts Act– Section 62 of India trust act imposes the equitable
condition on the beneficiary to repay the trustees the purchase money with the
interest and of other legitimate expenses when he seeks a declaration on trust or
retransfer of trust property wrongfully bought by the trustee.
Other Applications
Wife’s Equity to a settlement.
The doctrine of mutuality in specific performance.
Unconscionable Bargains.
Election & Mortgage.
Mortgage by deposits of title deeds.
Limitations
There are however two important limitations bearing the scope of maxim. They
are as follows:
Firstly, in order for the maxim may apply, it is necessary that the equity sought
by or awarded to the defendant is with respect to the subject-matter of the suit or
grows out of the controversy pending before the court.
Secondly, the maxim applies only where a party is appealing to the court in
order to obtain some equitable relief. It is not applicable when the plaintiff seeks
to enforce purely legal rights even though through a Court Of Equity.
He who comes to Equity must come with clean hands
The maxim is sometimes expressed in another form i.e., “he that hath
committed iniquity shall not have equity”. It means that the person seeking
relief from a court of equity, must not himself be guilty of a conduct (with
regard to the same transaction) which would disentitle him to the assistance of
the court. He must be clean, clear of any participation in fraud or similar
inequitable conduct.
The maxim is based on conscience and good faith. While a Court of Equity tries
to promote and enforce justice, good faith, uprightness and fairness on the part
of the defendant, it nonetheless, stringently demands the same from the plaintiff.
The plaintiff must concede all equitable rights of his adversary which grow out
of or are inseparable connected with the matter in dispute.
This maxim is applicable both to the defendant as well as to the plaintiff, and
the man who seeks to avail himself of an equitable defense, must stand the test
as well as one who appears as plaintiff in a case.
Injunction. On the same principle, the Court of Equity will not grant any
injunction to a party in the continuance of a legal wrong even if the defendant is
also guilty of legal wrong. Equity will not grant injunction, for Equity will not
adjust difference between wrong-doers. Fraud, illegality and breach of copyright
in works are the instances of immoral or libelous acts for the continuance of
which the Court will not grant injunction.
Relief of rescission or cancellation- These are equitable reliefs provided under
Chapters IV and V of the Specific Relief Act and the conditions being fulfilled,
the Court would rescind a contract or cancel an instrument. But if there is
anything unfair or inequitable on the part of the plaintiff, the relief will not be
available to him.
Limitation & Exceptions
This maxim does not apply to every unconscientious or inequitable conduct on
the part of the plaintiff. It is confined to the misconduct in regard to the matter
in litigation.