Introduction

Equity is a separate system of law from the Common-Law. It has different rules, principles, and remedies.
Thus, to understand the principles on which the Law of Equity is based, we must understand its origin and
the reasons for its requirement despite the presence of a system of law, i.e. the Common Law. Common
Law is the body of customary law which originated in the Curia Regis (King’s Court), London. English
Common Law was primarily developed by judges and was based on judicial decisions and precedents.
The country saw the need for the Law of Equity because of the following two main reasons:

Under Common Law, there was only one remedy available, i.e., damages. Thus, a just and fair remedy
couldn’t always be given through Common Law where monetary compensation was not suitable. This
remedy did not always have a significant concluding impact within cases.
A civil action under Common Law could only be started by the means of a writ which was a legal
document where it was written why and on what legal basis a person was being sued. Problems arose
when a matter was not covered by any writ. Making of the writs with every new case was stopped in the
13th century and this meant that if a case was not already covered by the writs, it was not carried forward.
This generated a huge amount of dissatisfaction among the public because many times they had to settle
with the inappropriate remedies or their cases were not even carried to the court as the writs were too
narrow or rigid. Subsequently, the Court of Chancery was directed to take up the case which was referred
to the king by petition and the Chancery Court developed the Law of Equity. Equity was mainly thought
of as fairness and it was a very powerful law as it overcame the conflicts with the Common Law. The
Chancellor decided the cases of which the King had taken note, he did so by largely relying on his sense
of fairness and justice and thus developed a large body of principles which became the Law of Equity. It
was very important to solve the conflict between the Law of Equity and the Common Law, this was
achieved in the 1615 Earl of Oxford’s Case. In this case, the King decided that between the conflict of
Common Law and Equity, Equity should prevail.

This article mainly discusses the general principles on which the Law of Equity is based and the remedies
available therein.

Principles of equity
The body of the Law of Equity is preserved in the following twelve maxims. These maxims are general
principles adopted to administer justice and fairness. They govern the Law of Equity and are
discretionary.

Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy

This maxim, in Latin, is “Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium ” which means “where there is a right there is a remedy”.
The maxim states that in situations where the common law confers a right, it also gives a remedy for
infringement of that right. It must be kept in mind that this principle is applicable only where the right and
the remedy both are within the jurisdiction of the court. In the Law of Equity, injunction and specific
performance are also the types of remedies available. In Ashby v. white a qualified voter was not allowed
to vote and thus he sued the returning officer, this case deals with the principle laid down in this maxim,
i.e. if a person has been granted a right, he is also granted with a remedy.

Equity follows the law

This maxim is also expressed as “aequitas sequitur legem”, which means that equity will not allow a
remedy that is contrary to the law. This maxims lays down that equity supplements law and does not
supersede it. The discretion of the court is governed by law and equity which are subservient to one
another. Wherever the law can be followed, it must be followed. In the cases where the law does not apply
specifically, this maxim suffers limitation. But in modern-day England and Wales, the law follows equity.
Section 49(1) of the Senior Courts Act,1981 clearly specifies that in case there is a conflict between the
rule of law and equity, equity shall prevail.

He who seeks equity must do equity

This maxim states that the plaintiff is also subject to the powers of the court and is thus obligated to
perform his duties following the principle of equity. The concern of this maxim is the future conduct of
the plaintiff. Thus, this maxim applies to the party who seeks equitable relief as it stipulates that the
plaintiff must also recognize and submit to the right of his adversary. This maxim was attracted in the case
of Lodge v. National Union Investment Company Limited where Lodge borrowed money from an
unregistered moneylender and thus upon an action by him to recover the securities, the court refused to
make an order except upon the terms that Lodge should repay the money which had been advanced to
him. This maxim is also applicable in the following legal provisions:

Section 19A of the Indian Contract Act – the plaintiff must restore all the benefits arising from the
contract which is rescinded by him.
Section 35 of Transfer of Property Act – the doctrine of election says that a benefit under a legal
instrument must be adopted with all of the provisions and obligations under such an instrument.
The Doctrine of Consolidation of Mortgages- where a borrower has mortgaged different properties to
secure separate debts, and he defaults on one of those debts, this doctrine allows for the lender to pool the
assets which were secured by the borrower and to realise those secured assets against the total sum owing.
Order 8, Rule 6 of the CPC, the doctrine of set-off – in case of mutual debt between two litigating parties,
the amount due to one party shall be set-off by the same amount which is due to the other party and only
the residuary amount shall be claimed.
He who comes to equity must come with clean hands
This doctrine relates to the past conduct of the parties and states that the person who comes to the court
seeking equity must not have involved in an inequitable act himself in the past. This maxim is concerned
with the past behaviour of the plaintiff. The maxim does not concern the general behaviour of the
plaintiff, the defence of unclean hands is only applicable in situations where there is nexus between the
applicant’s wrongful act and the right that he wishes to enforce.
This principle was upheld in the case of D & C Builders Ltd v. Rees where the claim of the plaintiff to
apply promissory estoppel was rejected because he had taken unfair advantage of the poor financial
position of the defendant’s builder company and thus had not come with clean hands.

If the plaintiff is involved in fraud or misrepresentation that concerns the respective case then he cannot
demand equity. This principle is also adopted in Section 17, 18, and 20 of the Specific Relief Act, which
lay down that a plaintiff’s unfair conduct will disentitle him to the equitable relief of specific performance
of a contract.

Delay defeats equity

The Latin maxim for this principle is “Vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit” which means that
Equity assists the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights. Unreasonable delay in bringing forth a
claim is known as laches. Laches may also result in dismissal of the claims. Thus, a party must assert an
action within a period of reasonable time. There are certain situations where the law of limitation is
expressly applied, in such cases, there is a particularized legal situation where a time period, which has
been expressly prescribed, has elapsed and the party is barred from bringing a suit of action.
In case of laches, the defence of acquiescence can be applied by the court and the plaintiff may be
disallowed from seeking an equitable remedy as the court would assume that he has acquiesced to the
questionable actions of the defendant. The equitable rule of acquiescence and laches was first introduced
in the case of Chief Young Dede v. African Association Ltd.

Equality is equity
This principle is expressed by the Latin maxim Aequitas est quasi aequalitas which means equality is
equity. This maxim implies that as far as possible, equity strives to put the litigating parties on an equal
level and equate their rights and responsibilities. The ordinary law may give one party advantage over the
other but the court of equity, wherever possible, puts the parties on an equal footing.

Equity looks to the intent rather than the form

This is the maxim by the means of which an equitable remedy was established which allows for the terms
of a contract to be interpreted by taking into account the intention of the parties. The common law was
very rigid and could not respond favourably to demand of time, this meant regarding the form of the
contract more important than the substance. Equity, on the other hand, looks to the spirit and not the letter
of the contract. This principle is enshrined in the provision for relief against penalty and forfeitures which
states that the object of a contract is to perform it and not the compensation, thus the compensation must
be proportionate to the damage and not benefit the receiver (Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act
provides for claiming reasonable compensation). In the case of the contract for the sale of land, if the
party fails to complete within a fixed period, equity allows reasonable time to the party to complete it
(Parkin v. Thorold).

Equity looks on that as done which ought to have been done

This maxim states that in cases where individuals are required, by law or by agreement, to perform any
act of legal significance, equity will regard that act as having been done as it ought to have been done
even before it actually happened. This principle results in the legal phenomenon of equitable conversion
under which the buyer obtains the equitable title to the property even before the sale has been legally
effected.

Equity imputes an intention to fulfill an obligation

This maxim means that if a person is obligated to do one act and does another, the act done by him will be
taken as a close enough approximation to the fulfillment of the required obligation. For example, if a
debtor leaves a legacy to his creditor which is equal to or greater than the debt owed by him, then equity
would regard such legacy as the fulfillment of the obligation of the payment of the debt owed by the
person.

Equity acts in personam

This maxim states the equity applies to a person rather than a property. In England, the Court of Common
law and Chancery Courts were distinguished by the fact that the former had authority over the person as
well as property but the latter only acted over people. The Equity court’s coercive power arose from their
authority to hold the violator in contempt of court and punish accordingly. Since the law of equity was
applicable to the persons and not the property, it could also apply to the property outside a jurisdiction,
provided that the person was within the jurisdiction. In the case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore, an order of
specific performance was made for the plaintiff who brought a boundary dispute case to an English Court,
yet the land was situated in Maryland, USA. the jurisdiction of the court was applicable to the parties as
they both were English and lived in England.

Where the equities are equal, the first in time prevails

Where the legal estate is absent in the matter and the contest is among equitable estate only, the person
whose equity is attached to the property first in time will be entitled to priority over others. Here, the term
equities refer to multiple equitable interests. Thus, in case two equities are equal, the original interest, i.e.,
the first in time will succeed. For example, if A grants an equitable mortgage to X and then subsequently
grants the same mortgage to Y, X’s mortgage shall take priority.

Where the equities are equal, the law prevails

In case neither of the parties has been wronged and both stand at an equitable position, the legal remedy
will be prioritized. Equity shall not provide any specific remedy in case both the parties have equal
causes. Thus, in such cases, the parties must bring a legal action rather than an equitable action.

Conclusion
The laws related to equity have evolved through precedent and the intention is to grant equitable rights
and remedies to the parties. The decisions of equity have largely been based on the judge’s discretion and
understanding of the fair and just cause. Equity dates back to the centuries ago and is still as relevant, so
is the case with law. Law and equity both are important for justice. Where the rigidities of the law
threaten justice, equity prevails, and where equity has no remedy the letter of law is followed. Justice,
thus, depends upon both and thus, both must be consulted in order to deliver justice