Free One Liner Notes · Principles of Equity One Liner Notes
Principles of Equity One Liner Notes
33 min read
Download Equity One Liner Notes PDF
Download Equity All MCQs +One Liner Notes
There are 2 Sets of MCQs available for Principles Of Equity, you are advised to explore all the sets :
Equity MCQs Set -1
Equity MCQs Set -2
PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY | |
| INTRODUCTION | |
| What is meant by the Principles of Equity? | Principles of Equity are rules developed to ensure justice, fairness, and good conscience where strict law is inadequate. |
| Why are the Principles of Equity important for? | They form a foundational part of legal reasoning and are frequently applied in civil and discretionary relief questions. |
| What is the origin of the Principles of Equity? | They originated in the English Court of Chancery to mitigate the rigidity of common law. |
| What is the primary objective of Equity? | To provide relief where application of strict law leads to injustice. |
| What is the nature of equitable principles? | They are discretionary, flexible, and based on justice, equity, and good conscience. |
| How do courts apply Principles of Equity in India? | Courts apply them in absence of statutory provisions or to supplement existing law. |
| What is the relationship between Equity and Law? | Equity follows the law but intervenes where law is silent or leads to unfair results. |
| Why is Equity considered important in judicial decision-making? | It ensures fairness and prevents misuse of legal technicalities. |
| What type of remedies are granted under Equity? | Discretionary remedies such as injunction, specific performance, rescission, and rectification. |
| What is the role of maxims in Equity? | Maxims are guiding principles that help courts apply equitable doctrines consistently. |
| FRIST PRINCIPLE - EQUITY WILL NOT SUFFER A WRONG TO BE WITHOUT A REMEDY | |
| What is the maxim “Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy”? | It means where there is a right, there is a remedy, expressed in the Latin maxim ubi jus ibi remedium. |
| What is the meaning of this maxim? | No wrong should go unredressed if it is capable of being remedied by courts. |
| What does this maxim indicate about the scope of equity? | It shows the wide scope and foundational basis of equity to provide remedies where law confers rights. |
| How does this maxim relate to common law rights? | Where common law gives a right, it also gives a remedy or right of action for interference or infringement of that right. |
| Which case illustrates this maxim? | In Ashby v. White, it was held that if the law gives a man a right, he must have a remedy if injured in the enjoyment of it. |
| How was this maxim applied in cases involving documents? | Recourse to Chancery Courts was made when discovery or production of documents was necessary, as common law left some wrongs without remedies. |
| What are the limitations of this maxim? | It does not apply if there is only a breach of moral right, if both right and remedy lie in common law, or if a party's negligence destroys evidence or waives the right to equitable remedy. |
| Which statutes recognize this maxim? | The Trust Act, Section 9 of CPC, and the Specific Relief Act. |
| What equitable remedies are provided under the Specific Relief Act? | Specific performance of contracts, injunctions, and declaratory suits. |
| PRINCIPLE SECOND - EQUITY FOLLOWS THE LAW | |
| What is the maxim “Equity follows the law”? | It means equity respects and is governed by the rules of law while administering justice according to conscience. |
| What did Jekyll, M.R. say about this maxim? | The discretion of the court is governed by the rules of law and equity, which are not to oppose but each, in turn, to be subservient to the other. |
| What did Maitland say about the relationship between law and equity? | Equity came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it, to supplement it, to explain it. |
| What is the goal of law and equity? | Both aim to achieve justice, but they follow different paths due to their nature and historical development. |
| How does equity treat common law rights? | Equity respects every word of law and every legal right but controls defective common law rights by recognizing equitable rights. |
| How did Snell explain the maxim? | Equity follows the law, but not slavishly nor always. |
| What is an application of the maxim “Equity follows the law”? | At common law, if a person died intestate owning a fee simple estate, the eldest son was entitled to the whole land, excluding younger siblings, and no equitable relief was granted. |
| When would equity interfere in such a case? | If the eldest son induced his father not to make a will by promising to divide the estate with siblings, equity would compel him to fulfill the promise. |
| Which case illustrates this application? | Stickland v. Aldridge. |
| What principle does this case demonstrate? | Equity follows the law but intervenes to prevent unconscionable advantage or injustice. |
| What does this example emphasize about equity and law? | Even when legal rights exist, equity ensures conscience and fairness are not violated. |
| What are the limitations of the maxim “Equity follows the law”? | Equity does not apply where a rule of law does not specifically and clearly apply, or where even by analogy the rule of law does not apply. |
| How is the maxim recognized in Bangladesh? | Bangladesh has not yet recognized the distinction between legal and equitable interests, so equity cannot override specific legal provisions. |
| Can equity override statutory limitations in Bangladesh? | No, equity cannot create exceptions to statutory provisions such as limitation periods for filing suits. |
| Which case illustrates this limitation in Bangladesh? | Indian Appa Narsappa Magdum case. |
| What principle does this case emphasize? | Courts in Bangladesh must apply law as it stands; principles of equity cannot extend, modify, or suspend statutory rules. |
| PRINCIPLE THIRD - HE WHO SEEKS EQUITY MUST DO EQUITY | |
| What is the maxim “He who seeks equity must do equity”? | To obtain equitable relief, the plaintiff must be willing to do equity and recognize the rights of the adversary. |
| What moral or religious principle supports this maxim? | Scriptures of Islam advise fairness and consciousness in dealings, warning against taking full measure from others while giving less in return. |
| In which doctrines does this maxim have application? | Illegal loans, doctrine of election, consideration of mortgages, notice to redeem mortgage, wise equity to settlement, equitable estoppel, restitution of benefits and cancellation of transactions, and set-off. |
| How does the maxim apply to illegal loans? | In Lodge v. National Union Investment Company Ltd., the plaintiff could recover securities only upon repaying the money advanced, as the loan was illegal and void. |
| What is the doctrine of election under this maxim? | If a donor gives his property to B and purports to give B’s property to C, B must choose either to accept A’s gift and give away his own property to C, or retain his property and refuse A’s gift. |
| Can B retain his own property and take A’s property simultaneously? | No, B cannot retain his property and simultaneously accept the property of A under the doctrine of election. |
| What is the third application of the maxim “He who seeks equity must do equity”? | It deals with consolidation of mortgages. |
| What is consolidation of mortgages? | Where a person is entitled to two mortgages from the same mortgagor, he may consolidate them and refuse to allow redemption of one unless the other is redeemed. |
| How is consolidation of mortgages restricted under English law? | After the Law of Property Act, 1925, consolidation is allowed only if expressly reserved in one of the mortgage deeds. |
| What is the fourth application of the maxim? | Notice to redeem mortgage. |
| What is meant by notice to redeem mortgage? | A mortgagor has an equitable right to be given notice before redeeming their mortgage. |
| What is the fifth application of the maxim? | Wife’s equity to a settlement. |
| What was the historical rule regarding a wife’s property? | A wife’s property merged with her husband’s and she had no independent rights. |
| How did equity intervene for the wife? | The husband was required to make reasonable provision for his wife and children. |
| How has the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act, 1935 changed this? | Married women now have full rights over their property; it is no longer consolidated with the husband’s property. |
| What is the sixth application of the maxim? | Equitable estoppel. |
| What is equitable estoppel? | If a party, by conduct or statement, leads another to reasonably rely on a promise, he must carry out that promise. |
| What is the seventh application of the maxim? | Restitution of benefits on cancellation of transaction. |
| What does restitution of benefits mean in equity? | Benefits of a voidable contract must be returned; a party cannot take advantage of his own wrong. |
| What is the eighth application of the maxim “He who seeks equity must do equity”? | It deals with set-off. |
| What is set-off in equity? | Where there are mutual credits, debts, or dealings between debtor and creditor, sums due from each are set-off, and only the balance is claimed or paid. |
| What is the first limitation of the maxim? | The demand for equitable relief must arise from a suit pending. |
| What is the second limitation of the maxim? | The maxim applies only to a party who seeks equitable relief. |
| Which statute recognizes the principle of restitution of benefits for voidable contracts? | Section 19A of the Contract Act, 1872, requires a party rescinding a voidable contract to return the benefits received. |
| Which statute embodies the doctrine of election? | Section 35 of the Transfer of Property Act. |
| Which sections of the Transfer of Property Act relate to mortgages under this principle? | Sections 51 and 54. |
| Which provision recognizes the doctrine of set-off in India? | Order 8, Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). |
| FOURT PRINCIPLE - HE WHO COMES INTO EQUITY MUST COME WITH CLEAN HANDS | |
| What is the maxim “He who comes into equity must come with clean hands”? | Equity requires fairness from both plaintiff and defendant; a plaintiff who has committed an inequity cannot claim equitable relief. |
| What does this maxim demand from the plaintiff? | The plaintiff’s behavior must not be against conscience before approaching the court. |
| Which case illustrates this maxim? | In the Highwaymen case, two robbers were partners; one sued the other for accounts of profits, but the court refused relief due to the illegal nature of the cause of action. |
| How does this maxim affect equitable remedies? | It applies when granting specific performance, injunction, rescission, or cancellation. |
| What is the limitation of this maxim? | The plaintiff’s general or past conduct is irrelevant; only conduct in relation to the suit matters. |
| Which judge explained this limitation? | Brandies J. in Loughran v. Loughran: “Equity does not demand that its suitors shall have led blameless lives.” |
| What are the exceptions to this maxim? | (i) If the transaction is against public policy, (ii) if the party repents before executing unjust plans. |
| Which statutes recognize this maxim? | Section 23 of the Indian Trust Act and Sections 17, 18, 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. |
| How does Section 23 of the Indian Trust Act apply? | An infant cannot set up a defence based on invalidity of a receipt given by him. |
| How do Sections 17, 18, 20 of the Specific Relief Act apply? | Plaintiff’s unfair conduct disentitles him to equitable relief like specific performance of a contract. |
| Difference between Third and Fourth Principle | |
| What is the difference between “He who seeks equity must do equity” and “He who comes into equity must come with clean hands”? | “Seeks equity” requires the plaintiff to perform his own equitable obligations, while “clean hands” requires the plaintiff to **have acted fairly in the matter of the dispute itself**. |
| What does “He who seeks equity must do equity” emphasize? | Plaintiff must **fulfill his duties or promises** before claiming equitable relief. |
| What does “He who comes into equity must come with clean hands” emphasize? | Plaintiff must **not act unconscionably or unfairly** in the subject matter of the suit. |
| Give an example of “He who seeks equity must do equity”. | Returning money received under an illegal loan before claiming securities back. |
| Give an example of “He who comes into equity must come with clean hands”. | Denying relief to a plaintiff claiming profits from an illegal partnership or robbery. |
| When is the maxim “He who seeks equity must do equity” applicable? | It applies when both plaintiff and defendant have claims for equitable relief against each other. |
| When is the maxim “He who comes into equity must come with clean hands” applicable? | It applies when the defendant has no separate claim to relief and the plaintiff’s conduct in the dispute is unfair. |
| What is the temporal focus of “Must do equity”? | It looks to the future, meaning the plaintiff must perform obligations as a condition subsequent to relief. |
| What is the temporal focus of “Clean hands”? | It looks to the past, meaning the plaintiff’s conduct before approaching the court is examined. |
| What does “Must do equity” examine in the plaintiff? | Whether the plaintiff submits to equitable conditions imposed by the court to obtain relief. |
| What does “Clean hands” examine in the plaintiff? | Whether the plaintiff’s prior conduct was fair and not unconscionable in the subject matter of the suit. |
| What choice does the plaintiff have under “Must do equity”? | The plaintiff may choose to submit to conditions imposed by the court or forgo equitable relief. |
| What happens if the plaintiff refuses under “Must do equity”? | The plaintiff’s equitable right will not be recognized or enforced. |
| Key distinction for exams | Must do equity is a condition subsequent based on future obligations, while Clean hands is a condition precedent based on past conduct. |
| FIFTH PRINCIPLE - DELAY DEFEATS EQUITIES | |
| What is the maxim “Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent”? | A plaintiff who delays unreasonably in asserting his rights may lose the claim, as equity favors those who act promptly. |
| What is the Latin term for this maxim? | Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subvenient. |
| What does the maxim mean in practice? | If one sleeps on his rights, the rights may slip away and claims may be barred by limitation or laches. |
| To which cases does the maxim not apply? | Cases governed by statutes of limitation either expressly or by analogy, or cases covered by ordinary rules of laches. |
| Which categories of equitable claims are affected by statutes of limitation? | i) Claims to which the statute applies expressly, ii) claims to which the statute applies by analogy, iii) claims governed by ordinary rules of laches. |
| What is the doctrine of laches? | Plaintiff’s unreasonable delay is a defense available to the defendant to bar equitable relief. |
| Give an example of laches in case law. | In a Bombay case, the plaintiff allowed the defendant to occupy land beyond the limitation period; the court denied relief. |
| Which other case illustrates this maxim? | Allcard v. Skinner. |
| How is this maxim recognized in Bangladeshi law? | The English doctrine of delay and laches cannot be imported directly due to Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908; Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act embodies the doctrine with modifications. |
| SIXTH PRINCIPLE - EQUALITY IS EQUITY | |
| What is the maxim “Equality is equity”? | Equity strives to put litigant parties on an equal level in terms of rights and responsibilities, using equality as a proper basis for justice. |
| What is another expression of this maxim? | Equity diliteth in equality. |
| What does equality mean in the context of equity? | Not strict equality, but proportionate equality considering rights and responsibilities. |
| How does this maxim apply in cases? | It is applied to ensure fairness and proportionate equity among parties in legal disputes. |
| Give examples of its application. | i) Equity is disliked for joint tenancy and presumption of tenancy in common. ii) Equal distribution of joint funds and joint purchases. iii) Contribution between co-trustees, co-sureties, and co-contractors. iv) Ratable distribution of legacies. v) Marshalling of assets. |
| SEVENTH - EQUITY LOOKS TO THE INTENT RATHER THAN THE FORM | |
| What is the maxim “Equity looks to the intent rather than the form”? | It means equity gives importance to the real intention and substance of a transaction rather than its external form or literal wording. |
| Why did this maxim develop in equity? | Because common law was rigid and emphasized the form and strict wording of transactions rather than the intention of the parties. |
| How does equity differ from common law under this principle? | Common law looks to the letter of the agreement, whereas equity looks to the spirit and intention behind it. |
| How is this maxim illustrated in contracts for sale of land? | If a party fails to perform within the fixed time, common law treats it as breach, but equity may allow reasonable time for performance. |
| What general principle regarding time in contracts flows from this maxim? | Equity generally treats time as not being of the essence in contracts relating to immovable property unless expressly stated. |
| In what major areas is this maxim applied? | Relief against penalties and forfeitures, precatory trusts, mortgages and the doctrine of redemption, and matters relating to the statute of frauds. |
| How does equity grant relief against penalties and forfeitures? | Equity interprets the real intention of the contract and allows only reasonable compensation instead of enforcing excessive penalties. |
| What is a precatory trust? | A trust inferred from words such as “I hope”, “I request”, or “I recommend” where the intention to create a trust can be gathered from the circumstances. |
| What are the essential elements required for creation of a trust? | Intention to create a trust, purpose of the trust, beneficiary, and trust property. |
| How does equity treat precatory words in trust creation? | If intention, purpose, beneficiary, and trust property are clear, equity may infer a trust even from precatory expressions. |
| How does this maxim apply in mortgages? | Equity protects the mortgagor’s right to redeem property on payment of the debt. |
| What is the doctrine of equity of redemption? | The mortgagor has the right to recover his property after paying the mortgage debt. |
| What maxim protects the mortgagor’s right of redemption? | Once a mortgage always a mortgage and nothing but a mortgage. |
| What is meant by clog on redemption? | Any condition that prevents or restricts the mortgagor from redeeming the mortgage is invalid in equity. |
| How does equity treat the Statute of Frauds? | Equity may enforce transactions by looking at the real intention of the parties rather than rigidly insisting on formal requirements. |
| Which statutory provisions recognize this equitable principle in India? | Section 55 of the Contract Act, Section 74 of the Contract Act, and Section 114A of the Transfer of Property Act. |
| What does Section 55 of the Contract Act provide in relation to this principle? | If time is the essence of the contract and performance is delayed, the contract becomes voidable; if time is not essential, only damages may be claimed. |
| What does Section 74 of the Contract Act provide? | Only reasonable compensation can be awarded for breach of contract even if a penalty is stipulated. |
| What does Section 114A of the Transfer of Property Act deal with? | It provides relief against forfeiture in certain cases of lease. |
| EIGHTH - EQUITY LOOKS TO THE INTENT RATHER THAN THE FORM | |
| What is the subject matter of the equitable maxim “Equity looks on that as done which ought to be done”? | It states that equity treats an obligation as performed if a person is under a duty to perform it. |
| What is the meaning of the maxim “Equity looks on that as done which ought to be done”? | Equity treats acts which ought to have been done as if they were actually done. |
| How do equity courts interpret acts of a person bound by conscience under this maxim? | They interpret them as amounting to what ought to have been done. |
| In the illustration where A leaves 50,000 Taka to T to buy land for B but T fails and B dies, who receives the money? | X, the person inheriting B’s immovable property. |
| Why does X receive the 50,000 Taka in the illustration under this maxim? | Because equity treats the land purchase which ought to have been made as already completed. |
| Through which doctrines is the maxim “Equity looks on that as done which ought to be done” applied? | Doctrine of conversion, executory contracts, and doctrine of part performance. |
| Under the doctrine of conversion, what transformation can equity effect? | It can treat money as immovable property and immovable property as money. |
| Which case illustrates the doctrine of conversion under this maxim? | Lachmere v. Lady Lachmere. |
| What does the doctrine of executory contracts signify under this maxim? | Equity treats a contract to assign or transfer property as completed when the property comes into existence. |
| Under executory contracts, how does equity treat assignment of future property for consideration? | As a contract to assign which becomes a complete assignment when the property comes into existence. |
| Which case is the leading authority for assignment of future property under executory contracts? | Holroyd v. Marshall. |
| Under executory contracts, how does equity treat an agreement for lease? | As a lease in equity. |
| Which case established that an agreement for lease may operate as a lease in equity? | Walsh v. Lonsdale. |
| What is meant by the doctrine of part performance? | It allows enforcement of contracts relating to land proved by oral evidence where one party has performed part of the contract. |
| Which case is the leading authority for the doctrine of part performance? | Maddison v. Alderson. |
| How have many doctrines of English equity been incorporated in Bangladesh? | They have been given statutory recognition. |
| Is an equitable estate recognised in Bangladesh in respect of equitable assignments? | No equitable estate is recognised. |
| How is transfer of future property for consideration treated in Bangladesh? | As a contract to be performed in the future. |
| Which statute illustrates this maxim in relation to contracts for sale of property? | The Transfer of Property Act. |
| Under the Transfer of Property Act example, what happens when A contracts to sell property to B but later sells it to C who has notice? | B may enforce the contract against C to the same extent as against A. |
| Which provision of the Specific Relief Act illustrates this maxim? | Section 12 relating to specific performance of part of a contract. |
| Which provision of the Trusts Act reflects this maxim regarding property acquired with notice of an existing contract? | The property must be held for the benefit of the person entitled under the contract. |
| NINTH PRINCIPLE - EQUITY IMPUTES AN INTENTION TO FULFIL AN OBLIGATION”? | |
| What is the maxim “Equity imputes an intention to fulfil an obligation”? | It means equity presumes that a person intends to perform and discharge his legal obligations. |
| What is the meaning of this maxim in equity? | When a person is under an obligation, equity assumes that his acts are intended to fulfil that obligation. |
| Why does equity apply this presumption? | Because equity prefers a construction of acts that satisfies an existing obligation rather than defeating it. |
| In what situations is this maxim generally applied? | It is applied mainly in cases relating to performance, satisfaction, and discharge of obligations. |
| What is meant by the doctrine of performance under this maxim? | When a person performs an act that fulfils an existing obligation, equity treats the obligation as discharged. |
| What is meant by the doctrine of satisfaction? | When a person provides a benefit intended to replace or discharge an existing obligation, equity treats it as satisfaction of that obligation. |
| What is an example of satisfaction in equity? | If a debtor gives property or another benefit to the creditor in place of money owed, equity may treat it as satisfaction of the debt. |
| What is the principle behind presumption of satisfaction? | Equity presumes that a person who is bound to perform an obligation intends to fulfil it rather than act inconsistently with it. |
| What is the objective of this maxim? | To ensure that obligations are treated as fulfilled when acts indicate an intention to discharge them. |
| What is the maxim “Equity imputes an intention to fulfil an obligation”? | It means equity presumes that a person intends to perform and discharge the obligation he is bound to perform. |
| What is the meaning of this maxim in equity? | When a person under an obligation performs an act capable of fulfilling that obligation, equity treats it as done in fulfilment of the obligation. |
| What presumption does equity make under this maxim? | A person is presumed to do what he is bound to do. |
| Which case illustrates this maxim? | Sowden v. Sowden. |
| What were the facts in Sowden v. Sowden? | A husband covenanted to pay £50,000 to trustees to buy land but instead purchased land himself for £50,000. |
| How did equity interpret the act in Sowden v. Sowden? | Equity presumed that the land was purchased to fulfil the husband's obligation under the marriage settlement. |
| In what main doctrines is this maxim applied? | Doctrine of performance and satisfaction, ademption, presumption of advancement, and relief against defective execution of power of appointment. |
| What is the doctrine of performance under this maxim? | When an act done by a person fulfils an existing obligation, equity treats the obligation as discharged. |
| Which cases illustrate the doctrine of performance? | Sowden v. Sowden and Lachmere v. Lady Lachmere. |
| What is meant by satisfaction in equity? | Satisfaction is the donation of something intended to extinguish an existing claim or obligation. |
| When does the maxim apply in cases of satisfaction? | When the presumed intention of the testator is to discharge a prior obligation unless the intention is expressly stated otherwise. |
| What is ademption? | Ademption is the transfer of property that operates as a complete or partial substitution for a gift previously made by will. |
| Illustrate the doctrine of ademption. | If X bequeaths one-third of his estate to Y and later gives Y 20,000 Taka during his lifetime, the gift may operate as ademption of the earlier legacy. |
| What is the doctrine of presumption of advancement? | When property is transferred without consideration by a parent or person in loco parentis to a child, equity presumes it is for the child’s benefit. |
| Between which relationships does the presumption of advancement apply? | Parent and child, husband and wife, mother and child, and even an illegitimate child. |
| To which relationship does the doctrine of advancement not apply? | It does not apply between a man and his mistress. |
| What is meant by power of appointment? | It is an authority given to a person to deal with or dispose of property that is not his own. |
| How does equity assist defective execution of a power of appointment? | Equity may aid defective execution when the intention to fulfil an obligation such as paying debts or providing for children is clear. |
| What is the principle behind aiding defective execution? | Equity considers it the duty of a person to pay debts and provide for family members. |
| How is this maxim recognized under statutory law? | It is recognized under the Succession Act and the Trust Act. |
| How does the Succession Act relate to this maxim? | It contains the rule of presumption against satisfaction regarding legacies and debts. |
| Which case illustrates presumption against satisfaction? | Hasanali v. Popatal. |
| What was decided in Hasanali v. Popatal? | A creditor who was given a legacy equal to the debt could claim both the legacy and the deposit. |
| What was held in the Rajmanar case regarding satisfaction? | If the will clearly shows the legacy was meant to satisfy a debt, the creditor cannot claim both. |
| How does the Trust Act recognize this maxim? | If a person contracts to buy property for beneficiaries and purchases it, he must hold it for their benefit. |
| What is the position of the doctrine of advancement in Bangladesh? | The doctrine of advancement does not apply in Bangladesh. |
| TENTH PRINCIPLE - WHERE EQUITIES ARE EQUAL, THE LAW SHALL PREVAIL | |
| What is the maxim “Where equities are equal, the law shall prevail”? | When two or more parties have equitable claims of equal value, equity will not prefer one over the other and the legal right will prevail. |
| What does the introduction of this maxim signify? | When conflicting interests are supported by equitable pleas of equal value, equity allows the conflicting equities to cancel out and lets the law decide the matter. |
| What is the principle underlying this maxim? | When two claimants assert equal equitable rights over the same property, equity follows the law and the legal right prevails. |
| Why does the legal right prevail when equities are equal? | Because equity follows the law and gives priority to the legal estate where competing equitable claims are equal. |
| What does the explanation of this maxim provide? | When a thing is claimed by two persons on the basis of equal equity, equity follows the law and the legal right takes precedence. |
| Illustrate the maxim with an example relating to right of way. | If A sells land to C which is subject to B’s right of way, C takes the land subject to B’s right of way even if he had no knowledge of it at the time of purchase. |
| What is the rule regarding purchasers of equitable interests? | A purchaser for valuable consideration without notice of a prior equitable interest who obtains the legal estate has priority both in equity and at law. |
| Why is such a purchaser given priority? | Because the purchaser’s conscience is not affected by the prior equitable claim. |
| How does this maxim apply in disputes involving transfer of property? | When both parties have equal equitable claims, the party having legal title or estate will succeed. |
| Illustrate this principle with an example of competing purchasers. | If A agrees to sell property to B but later sells and transfers possession to C through a legal document, C obtains legal interest and prevails over B’s equitable interest. |
| Why does C succeed over B in such a case? | Because B has only an equitable interest binding A’s conscience whereas C has obtained the legal estate and possession. |
| What rule emerges from this illustration? | Legal interest is stronger than equitable interest when equities are equal. |
| Which doctrines are based on this maxim? | The doctrines of Election, Marshalling and Set-off. |
| When is this maxim applied in conflicts between rights? | When legal and equitable rights conflict and the equities between the parties are equal. |
| When does this maxim not apply? | When priority in equity is determined by time rather than legal title. |
| Which provision of the Transfer of Property Act reflects this maxim in mortgage law? | Section 78 of the Transfer of Property Act. |
| What does Section 78 of the Transfer of Property Act provide? | Where through fraud, misrepresentation or gross neglect of a prior mortgagee another person advances money on the mortgaged property, the prior mortgagee may be postponed to the subsequent mortgagee. |
| Which other provision of the Transfer of Property Act reflects this maxim? | Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. |
| What does Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act state? | Any transfer of immovable property made with intent to defeat or delay creditors is voidable at the option of the creditor so defeated or delayed. |
| What is the first exception to this maxim? | A subsequent legal interest cannot obtain priority over a prior equitable interest where negligence or breach of duty exists. |
| When may legal property lose priority over equitable property? | Where fraud, negligence or breach of duty affects the holder of the legal estate. |
| What is the second exception to this maxim? | Where there are equal equities but no legal right exists, the maxim does not apply. |
| How is this maxim applied in Bangladesh in cases of multiple mortgages? | When several mortgages are created on the same property on different dates without notice of earlier mortgages, priority follows the order of time. |
| Which mortgagee has priority in such a situation? | The first mortgagee having the legal estate has priority. |
| What happens if a subsequent mortgagee pays off the first mortgage and obtains assignment of the legal estate? | The subsequent mortgagee may obtain priority over intermediate mortgagees. |
| What happens if the first mortgagee does not possess the legal estate? | A later mortgagee cannot obtain priority over an earlier mortgagee merely by paying off the first mortgage. |
| ELEVENTH PRINCIPLE - WHERE EQUITIES ARE EQUAL, THE FIRST IN TIME SHALL PREVAIL | |
| What is the maxim “Where equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail”? | When competing interests are equitable and of equal value, the interest created earlier in time gets priority. |
| What is the subject matter of this maxim? | It deals with priority between competing interests in property. |
| What understanding is necessary to apply this maxim? | The distinction between legal interest and equitable interest. |
| What is a legal interest or legal estate? | A legal interest is an interest in property acquired by a purchaser for valuable consideration such as cash or marriage consideration and includes interests of mortgagees and lessees. |
| What is an equitable interest? | An equitable interest is an interest recognized by courts of equity such as the beneficial interest of a beneficiary in a trust. |
| Illustrate equitable interest with an example of trust. | Although the trustee holds legal title to property, the beneficiaries have equitable interest and may sue the trustee for breach of trust. |
| What is the general rule governing priorities under this maxim? | Interests take effect in order of their creation and the interest created first receives priority. |
| What is the basic principle derived from the general rule? | The person whose rights are created first will receive priority in a court of equity. |
| When may a prior equitable interest be defeated? | When a subsequent purchaser acquires a legal interest for value without notice of the earlier equitable interest. |
| Why does the subsequent purchaser prevail in such a case? | Because the equities are equal and the legal interest prevails over the earlier equitable interest. |
| Explain the maxim “Where equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail.” | When there is no legal estate involved and the contest is between equitable interests only, priority is given to the interest created earlier. |
| Illustrate this rule with the example of contracts for sale. | If A contracts to sell his house first to B and later to C, both interests being equitable, B will have priority because his interest arose first. |
| When does this maxim operate? | When there are two or more competing interests and both interests are equitable in nature. |
| What rule applies when two parties have rights over the same property? | The party who acquired the equitable interest first will prevail in equity. |
| Illustrate the maxim with the example of sale of a boat. | If a seller accepts an offer from the first buyer and later sells to another buyer for a higher price, the first buyer gets priority because his contractual right arose first. |
| What happens to the second buyer in such a case? | The second buyer must return the property and recover the money paid. |
| What is the main conclusion drawn from this maxim? | Among competing equitable interests, priority is determined by time and the earlier equity prevails. |
| Why does the earlier equitable interest prevail? | Because the equity attached to the property at an earlier point of time gives the holder priority over later equitable interests. |
| What is the core difference between the 10th and 11th maxims of equity? | The 10th maxim resolves a conflict between legal and equitable rights by giving priority to the legal right, whereas the 11th maxim resolves a conflict between two equitable rights by giving priority to the one created earlier in time. |
| What type of rights conflict under the 10th maxim? | It applies where a legal interest competes with an equitable interest. |
| What type of rights conflict under the 11th maxim? | It applies where both competing interests are equitable and no legal estate exists to determine priority. |
| What rule decides priority under the 10th maxim? | The holder of the legal estate prevails because equity follows the law. |
| What rule decides priority under the 11th maxim? | The equitable interest created first in time prevails over the later equitable interest. |
| What is the deciding factor in the 10th maxim? | Possession of a legal title or legal estate. |
| What is the deciding factor in the 11th maxim? | Chronological priority of the equitable interest. |
| What is the underlying principle of the 10th maxim? | Legal rights override equitable rights when equities are equal. |
| What is the underlying principle of the 11th maxim? | Among equal equities, the earlier one prevails. |
| What is the practical test used by courts to distinguish the two maxims? | If a legal estate exists the law prevails (10th maxim), but if only equitable interests exist the earlier equity prevails (11th maxim). |
| TWELTH PRINCIPLE - EQUITY ACTS IN PERSONAM | |
| What is the maxim “Equity acts in personam”? | It means courts of equity act upon the conscience of a person rather than directly upon the property. |
| What is meant by acting in personam? | Acting in personam means directing orders against a person so that his conscience compels him to perform or refrain from certain acts. |
| How does equity acting in personam differ from common law acting in rem? | Equity acts against the person while common law generally acts against the property involved in the dispute. |
| Which famous case recognized the superiority of equity over common law? | The Earl of Oxford’s Case. |
| What was the principle stated in the Earl of Oxford’s Case? | In case of conflict between equity and common law, equity shall prevail. |
| What view did Lord Ellesmere express regarding equity? | Equity does not compete with common law but acts upon the conscience of the parties. |
| What was the view of King James I regarding equity? | King James I supported the principle that equity should prevail over common law in case of conflict. |
| In what situations is the maxim “equity acts in personam” particularly useful? | It is useful in disputes relating to trusts, mortgages, receivership and properties situated abroad. |
| What is the first condition for applying this maxim? | The defendant must be within the jurisdiction of the court. |
| What is the second limitation on applying this maxim? | The court will not grant an order that violates the legal rules of another country. |
| What is the third limitation of this maxim? | Equity will not grant an order that cannot be enforced because equity does not act in vain. |
| What additional condition must exist before applying the maxim? | Legal proceedings should not already have been started in the appropriate foreign court. |
| Which case explained that courts should not issue unenforceable orders? | Norris v. Chambres. |
| What principle was stated in Norris v. Chambres? | A court should not issue an order requiring intervention of a foreign court because it would be an empty threat (brutum fulmen). |
| Which case illustrates application of this maxim in a foreign land dispute? | Penn v. Baltimore. |
| What happened in Penn v. Baltimore? | An English court granted specific performance in a boundary dispute even though the land was in Maryland because the parties were within its jurisdiction. |
| Which case applied the maxim in matters of administration of estate? | Ewing v. Orr Ewing. |
| What was held in Ewing v. Orr Ewing? | Administration of the estate could begin in England because the parties were within jurisdiction even though the deceased was domiciled in Scotland. |
| Which case applied the maxim in a contract for sale of property? | Richard West and Partners (Inverness) v. Dick. |
| What was decided in Richard West and Partners v. Dick? | The court granted specific performance against a buyer who attempted to withdraw from a property purchase. |
| What is the meaning of courts of equity being courts of conscience? | Courts of equity bind the conscience of individuals and direct them to act or refrain from acting according to justice and fairness. |
| How were decrees of equity traditionally viewed? | They were orders addressed to individuals compelling them to act or refrain from certain conduct. |
| How does this maxim influence equitable procedure and remedies? | It governs many procedural and remedial actions of equity courts by directing orders against individuals. |
| What is the position of this maxim in the Indian subcontinent? | Opinions are divided, though Indian courts recognize limited jurisdiction to issue decrees in personam. |
| Which provision of the Civil Procedure Code is relevant to this discussion? | Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code. |
| Does Section 16 CPC directly recognize the maxim? | No, it mainly deals with territorial jurisdiction of courts. |
| Which part of Section 16 CPC reflects this maxim? | The proviso to Section 16 indirectly reflects the principle of equity acting in personam. |
| Have Indian courts fully adopted the doctrine of equity acting in personam? | No, Indian courts exercise this jurisdiction only in a limited and modified manner. |
| How were principles of English equity applied in the Indian subcontinent? | Courts applied them on the basis of justice, equity and good conscience. |
| What was decided in the Privy Council case involving deposit of title deeds? | The Privy Council held that rights created by deposit of title deeds could only be defeated by a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. |
| Which Indian case followed this principle? | Dada Honaji v. Babaji. |
| What issue was decided in Waghela Rajsanji v. Shekh Masluddi? | Whether a guardian could create personal liability for a ward through covenants. |
| What did the Privy Council decide in Waghela Rajsanji v. Shekh Masluddi? | It held that such covenants should not be upheld as valid. |
| What principle was applied when land washed away by the Ganges later reappeared? | The restored land belonged to the original owner. |
| Which case applied the doctrine of estoppel by holding out? | Ram Coomar v. Macqueen. |
| What principle was established in Ram Coomar v. Macqueen? | A real owner who allows another to appear as owner cannot later assert his hidden title against a bona fide purchaser. |
| What principle did the Privy Council recognize regarding property of a deceased Brahmin? | The right of the Crown to escheat such property was recognized despite contrary Hindu law. |
| Which additional equitable principles were recognized in Indian courts? | The doctrine of clog on the equity of redemption and restrictions on alienation of property to strangers. |
Download Equity One Liner Notes PDF
