*** The notes are a brief overview. Add more case studies, examples etc.

subject to
availability.

1. EQUITY WILL NOT SUFFER A WRONG TO BE WITHOUT A REMEDY

Meaning

Where there is a right there is a remedy. This idea is expressed in the Latin Maxim
ubi jus ibi remedium. It means that no wrong should go un redressed if it is capable of
being remedied by courts. This maxim indicates the width of the scope and the basis
of on which the structure of equity rests. This maxim imp orts t h a t w here t he
common law confers a right , it gives also a remedy or right of action for interference
with or infringement of that right.

Application

In order to invoke the aid of this maxim either of the three conditions should exist, namely:

• The right be recognized by equity, although not by law;or,

• The right be recognized by the law, although the remedy be not available there; or,

• The remedy at law for the violation of the right be not complete or adequate.

In Ashby v. White, where in a qualified voter was not allowed to vote and who therefore
sued the returning officer, it was held that if the law gives a man a right, he must have a
means to maintain it, and a remedy, if he is injured in the enjoyment of it.

Limitation
a) If there is a breach of a moral right only.
b) If the right and remedy both were in within the jurisdiction of the Common Law courts.
c) Where due to his own negligence a party either destroyed or allowed to be

The notes provided here is for educational purpose only and fair use is permitted by copyright statute.
 destroyed, the evidence in his own favour or waived his right to an equitable remedy.

Rule embodied in Indian enactments

The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium is incorporated in many Indian enactments. The
Indian Specific Relief Act provides equitable remedies by way of specific performance of
contracts, rectification of instruments, declaratory decrees, injunctions, etc. The Indian
Trusts Act provides for trusts. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code practically incorporates
the maxim. In this way, this maxim is responsible for the whole jurisdiction of equity. This
maxim is the crux of all maxims of Court of Chancery

2. EQUITY FOLLOWS THE LAW

Meaning
The maxim indicates the discipline which the Chancery Courts observed while
administering justice according to conscience. Jekyll observed that, the discretion of the
court is governed by the rules of law and equity. Maitland said, thus equity came not to
destroy the law but to fulfill it, to supplement it, to explain it. The goal of equity and law is
the same, but due to their nature and due to historic accident they chose different paths.
Equity respected every word of law and every right at law but where the law was defective,
in those instances, these Common Law rights were controlled by recognition of equitable
rights. Snell therefore explained this maxim in slightly different way equity follows the law,
but not slavishly, nor always.

Application
A person leaves his sons and daughters after his death. The eldest son was
entitled to the whole of the land by exclusion of his younger brothers and sisters under the
rules of primogeniture. This was unfair, yet no relief was granted by equity courts. The
eldest son had induced his father not to make a will and giving a promise to divide the land

The notes provided here is for educational purpose only and fair use is permitted by copyright statute.
with his brothers and sisters. Then the equity court interfered and compelled the eldest son
to carry out his promise, because he takes it as a trustee for himself and his brothers and
sisters. This decision was held in Stickland v Aldridge.

Limitation

1.Where a rule of law did not specifically and clearly apply.

2.Where even by analogy the rule of law did not apply.

Application of maxim in India.

The distinction between legal and equitable interests does not exist in India. In all
actions, whether it relates to legal rights and interests, or to what are known in England as
equitable rights and interests, if there be any statutory provision relating to the subject-
matter, that must apply and equitable consideration will not be allowed to override the
provisions of the Statute) For example, in all actions, the Courts are required to apply the
law of limitation as contained in Indian Limitation Act, 1963. The Courts cannot deviate from
the provisions of the Limitation Act and enlarge on equitable grounds the time allowed by
the law, postpone its operation or introduce exceptions not recognised by it. Besides, in the
case of the law of registrations, the Privy Council has observed, "Nor can Equity override a
statute and confer upon a person a right which the statute enacts shall be conferred only
by a registered instrument."

3. HE WHO SEEKS EQUITY MUST DO EQUITY

Meaning

The maxim means that to obtain an equitable relief the plaintiff must himself be
prepared to do equity that is, a plaintiff must recognize and submit to the right of his

The notes provided here is for educational purpose only and fair use is permitted by copyright statute.
adversary. The maxim expresses that the person seeking the assistance of a court of equity
must himself do equity, i.e, act fairly. The rationale of this is well defined by Lord
Cottenham in Sturgis v. Champneys.

Application

This maxim has application in the following doctrines:

1. Illegal Loans
2. Doctrine of election
3. Wife’s equity to settlement
4. Set-off

1.Illegal loans,
In Lodge v National Union Investment Co. Ltd., .one B borrowed money from M
by mortgaging certain securities to him. M was a unregistered money-lender. Under the
Money-Lenders’ Act, 1900, the contract was illegal and therefore void. B sued M for return
of the securities. The court refused to make an order except upon the terms that B should
repay the money which had been advanced to him.

2. Doctrine of Election :
Where a donor A gives his own property to B and n the same instrument purports
to give B’s property to C, B will be put to an election, either accept the benefit granted to
him by the donor and give away his own property to C or retain his own property and refuse
to accept the property of A on condition. But B cannot retain his property and at the same
time take the property of A.

3. Wife’s equity to a settlement:

There was a time when woman’s property was merged with that of her husband. She
had no property of her own. Equity court imposed on the husband that he must make a

The notes provided here is for educational purpose only and fair use is permitted by copyright statute.
reasonable provision for his wife and her children. But, now, under the Law Reform (Married
Women and Tortfeasors) Act, 1935 married women have full right on her property and it is
not consolidated with her husband’s property.
4. Set-off
Where there have been mutual credits, mutual debts or other natural dealings
between the debtor and any creditor, the sum due from one party is to be set-off against
any sum due from the other party, and only the balance of the account is to be claimed or
paid on either side respectively.

Application of Maxim in India.

It may be noted that this maxim has been used by various High Courts and the
Supreme Court in their judgments of various cases. In Collector of Bombay v. Municipal
Corporation of Bombay. Chandra Shekhar Rao, J. of Supreme Court held that the
government was bound by its promises and that a Court of Equity must prevent the
perpetration of a legal fraud.

In Union of India v. Anglo Afgan Agencies, while delivering the judgment, Shah,
J had said, "under our jurisprudence, the government is not exempt from liability to carry
out the representation made by it as to its future conduct and it cannot on some undefined
and undisclosed ground of necessity or expediency fail to carry out the promise solemnly
made by it, nor claim to be the judge of its own obligation to the citizen on an ex parte
appraisement of the circumstances in which the obligation has arisen."

Had this defence been allowed, it would have been very easy for the executive to
take away the constitutional rights of the people.

The application of this maxim can be seen in following Indian Acts:

i) Indian Contract Act.

The notes provided here is for educational purpose only and fair use is permitted by copyright statute.
 Section 19-A of the Indian Contract Act lays down mat "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.
Any such contract may be set aside either absolutely or, if the party who was entitled
to avoid it, has received any benefit thereunder, upon such terms and/conditions as the
Court may seem just."
Sections 64 and 65 of the Indian Contract Act are also based on this maxim. These
sections provide that the party seeking to avoid a void or voidable contract is required to
restore the benefit which he received from the other party to such contract.

(ii) Specific Relief Act.

Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that on adjudging the rescission
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.
Section 30 and 33 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provide that, on adjudging the
cancellation of an instrument, the court may require the party to whom such relief is granted
to make compensation to the other, which justice may require.

iii) Indian Trusts Act.-

Section 62 of the Indian Trusts Act, 18 the equitable condition on the beneficiary to
repay the trustee th money with interest and of other legitimate expenses when declaration
on trust or retransfer of trust property wrongfully bo trustee.

Similarly, Section 86, imposes the equitable condition of consideration amount paid
in transfer of property pursuant to contract.

Limitation

1. The demand for an equitable relief must arise from a suit that is

The notes provided here is for educational purpose only and fair use is permitted by copyright statute.
 pending.
2. This maxim is applicable to a party who seeks an equitable relief.

4. HE WHO COMES INTO EQUITY MUST COME WITH CLEAN HANDS

Meaning

The person seeking relief must not himself guilty of illegal or immoral conduct with
regard to the same transaction which would dis entitle him to any assistance of the court.
The court of equity will take into consideration, the personal conduct of the plaintiff in the
transaction in dispute and if he had not sought the help of the court with clean hands, court
will refuse to grant him relief.
Equity demands fairness not only from the defendant but also from the plaintiff. It
is therefore said that “he that has committed an inequity, shall not have equity.” While
applying this maxim the court believed that the behavior of the plaintiff was not against
conscience before he came to the court.

The Highwaymen's case- In this case one highwayman filed a bill against another
highwayman for an account of the gains made by robbing a gentleman on the highway. As
a rule it was incumbent upon the Court of Equity to grant an account as between partners
in any occupation. But as in this case the action itself was illegal, so, no relief was granted
to the plaintiff but the solicitors were taken into custody, fined £50 and imprisoned till
payment. The counsel who signed the bill was made to pay the costs.

Application

This maxim has application on the following cases.

The notes provided here is for educational purpose only and fair use is permitted by copyright statute.
 a. Specific performance:
If the plaintiff has been guilty of undue advantage the court of equity will refuse the specific
performance of a contract.

b. Illegality:
Where the parties to n illegal agreement appear before the court of equity for division of
their respective shares towards the property obtained. it is revealed before the court that
they had looted it at the road so equity refused to give any relief to any party.

c. Fraud
In case of fraud, equity will not grant relief to a party who has committed fraud.

d. Benami Transaction:
Real owner is not allowed to recover the property.

e. Infant's misrepresentation:
Where a minor fraudulently concealing his age and obtained a sum from his trustee which
he was entitled to only at the age of majority. he was refused to get the assistance from the
court of equity.

Application of the maxim

In the case of Overton v. Banister, an infant girl fraudulently concealed her age and
obtained from her trustees a sum of money to which she was entitled only on coming of
age. Subsequently when she became a major, she instituted a suit against the trustees to
compel them to pay over again the money which had been improperly paid by them to her
during her minority. It was held that the girl could not enforce payment over again for
although the receipt of an infant is ineffectual to discharge a debt, yet the girl having
misrepresented her age, could not set up the invalidity of the receipt.

The notes provided here is for educational purpose only and fair use is permitted by copyright statute.
Application of Maxim in India-

(i) Indian Trusts Act.-

This principle has been incorporated in Section 23 of the Indian Trusts Act which
provides that the beneficiary cannot successfully sue the trustee to make good the loss to
the trust property due to a breach of trust if the beneficiary has, by fraud, induced the trustee
to commit a breach of trust or has concurred or acquiesced in the breach of trust without
any coercion or undue influence, etc.

If there is abuse of process of Court by filing multiple proceedings in different Courts

within a short period of time, it shall be held that such party is not possessed of clean hands
therefore not entitled to an equitable relief. A principle to this effect was laid down by the
Supreme Court in recent case Mahabir Prasad Jain v. Ganga Singh," The Supreme Court
has expressed the view that even possession of immovable property b by its owner cannot
be taken without resorting to the due process of law. A person, taking possession, without
legal process cannot be deemed to be with clean hands,10

ii) Specific Relief Act.

The equitable relief of specific performance will be available if plaintiff's conduct in

obtaining or acting under the contract is unconscientious and unfair.

Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act lays down that, "Jurisdiction to decree specific
performance is discretionary and the Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because
it is lawful to do so." Similarly, Section 25 of the Act denies specific performance of a
contract for the sale or letting of property to al the vendor or lessor if he entered into the
contract knowing that he had no title to the property. Besides, Section 28 of the Act lays
down that Equity will refuse specific performance of a contract, which may be perfectly valid
in law? if the plaintiff has been guilty of undue advantage, circumvention, or unfair practices.

The notes provided here is for educational purpose only and fair use is permitted by copyright statute.
iii) 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 libellous acts for
the continuance of which the Court will not grant injunction.

(iv) 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

General or total conduct of the plaintiff is not to be considered here. It will be seen whether
he was of clean hands in the same suit he brought or not

Exception
i) If the transaction is against public policy
ii) if the party repents for his conduct before his unjust plans are carried out.

5. DELAY DEFEATS EQUITY

EQUITY AIDS THE VIGILANT, NOT THE INDOLENT

The notes provided here is for educational purpose only and fair use is permitted by copyright statute.
 If there is an unreasonable delay in bringing proceedings, the case may be
disallowed in equity. Acquiescence is where one party breaches another's rights and that
party doesn't take an action against them they may not be allowed to pursue this claim at
a later stage. These may be used as defences in relation to equity cases. For a defence
of laches courts must decide whether the plaintiff has delayed unreasonably in bringing
forth their claim and the defence of acquiescence can be used if the actions of the
defendant suggest that they are not going ahead with the claim so it is reasonable for the
other party to assume that there is no claim.
A Latin term in this regard is “Vigilantibus, non dormentibus, jura subvenient.” which
means “Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent”. So, if one sleeps on his rights, his
rights will slip away from him. Legal claims are barred by statutes of limitation and equitable
claims may be barred not only by limitation law but also by unreasonable delay, called
laches.

Application

To cases which are governed by statutes of limitation either expressly or by analogy

the maxim will not apply. Such cases fall into three categories-

i) Those equitable claims to which the statute applies expressly.

ii) To which the statute applies by analogy.
iii) Equitable claims which are covered by ordinary rules of laches.

Doctrine of Laches

Delay which is sufficient to prevent a party from exercising its rights and obtaining
relief from court of law is called laches. Laches is more than mere delay, and instead
implies neglect to do what ought to have been done. Thus, the maxim means that a
party who delays in enforcing rights will not be able to seek equitable relief.

The notes provided here is for educational purpose only and fair use is permitted by copyright statute.
 Example: The plaintiff allowed his land to be occupied by the defendant and this was
acquiesced by him even beyond the period of limitation. On a suit of the land it was decided
that as the period of limitation to recover possession had expired, no relief could be
granted.

Delay When Fatal:

In the following cases delay is fatal for a party desirous of enforcing his rights:-

1. Loss of Evidence: As a result of delay when the available evidence is lost or

destroyed.
2. Waiver of Right: When the other party is induced to assume or draw an inference
from one’s conduct that one has waived his rights.
3. Release of Right: Delay provides a ground to the other party and leads him to
believe that one has agreed to abandon and release his right
4. Loss of Witness: Loss of witnesses could be occurred in case of death.
Limitation
This maxim does not apply when-
i) where the law of limitation expressly applies
ii) where it applies by analogy, and
iii) where the law of limitation does not apply but the cases are governed by ordinary
rules of laches.

Application of the Maxim in India.

This maxim has no general application in India but has a limited scope. Where there
is a long lapse of time in challenging the defendant's title, the presumption would be that it

The notes provided here is for educational purpose only and fair use is permitted by copyright statute.
had a lawful origin and the Court would fill in the details obliterated by time. In case of costs,
laches may be a ground for refusal. The Indian Limitation Act has made provision for all
conceivable cases, and cases not specially provided for in Act are governed by the
residuary Article 120. Indian Limitation Act provides under Section 113 three years as the
period within which to file a suit for specific performance of a contract.) Hence, mere delay
in suing will not be sufficient to defeat the plaintiff's suit for specific performance. It is only
when delay amounts to waiver or abandonment or acquiescence and had so altered the
position of the defendant that it disentitles the plaintiff to a decree for specific performance
or other equitable relief. And even where the statutes do not expressly apply to equitable
claims, a Court of Equity acts by analogy to the statute where the remedy in Equity
corresponds with the remedy at law which is subject to a statutory limitation.

The notes provided here is for educational purpose only and fair use is permitted by copyright statute.
lOMoAR cPSD| 10321802