Define concept of Equity.

What is the history and development of equity in English

Law?

Introduction-- In law, the term "equity" refers to a particular set of remedies and
associated procedures involved with civil law. These equitable doctrines and
procedures are distinguished from "legal" ones. A court will typically award
equitable remedies when a legal remedy is insufficient or inadequate.
Equity is a legal system for obtaining a fair result when existing laws do not
provide solution. It is a set of legal principles that supplement strict rules of law
where their application would operate harshly. equity maxim are legal maxims that
serve as a set of general principles or rules which are said to govern the way in
which equity operates. Equity is a Latin word which means fairness, justice. It is a
system of law originating in the
English chancery and comprising a settled and formal body of substantive and
procedural rules and doctrines that supplement, aid, or override common and
statutory law. Equity is based on a judicial assessment of fairness as opposed to
the strict and rigid rule of common law. In cases, where Common Law was not
applicable, the Chancellor presided over such cases in special courts called ‘Equity
Courts’. Equity courts had a separate existence from the Common Law Courts in
England.

Definition
According to Plato:
“Equity is a necessary element supplementary to the imperfect generalization of
legal rules.”
According to Snell:
“Equity is a portion of natural justice which, although of a nature suitable for
judicial enforcement, was for historical reasons not enforced by the Common Law
Courts, an omission which was supplied by the Courts of Chancery.
According to Blackstone,:
“Equity is the soul and spirit of all laws. In this, equity is synonymous with justice
and sound interpretation of the rule.”
of equity by various jurists
According to Plato:
“Equity is a necessary element supplementary to the
imperfect
generalization of legal rules.”
According to Snell:
“Equity is a portion of natural justice which, although of a
nature suitable
for judicial enforcement, was for historical reasons not enforced by the Common
Law
Courts, an omission which was supplied by the Courts of Chancery.”
According to Blackstone,
“Equity is the soul and spirit of all laws. In this, equity is
synonymous
with justice and sound interpretation of the rule.”
Nature of Equity
The nature and scope of equity says that equity must preliminary mean right doing,
or justice in the purely ethical meaning of that word. In England equity has
acquired an entirely specialized meaning. It includes technically only certain rules
which were developed in the court of chancery. The basis for its creation may have
been the desire to do right thing between men according to the moral law of time,
but it was always limited and has now become a fix body of principles of the
common law.
So, we can say that-
The general rule is that equity follows the law and the equitable interests have in
general the same incidents and attributes as have corresponding legal interests.
They devolve and can be settled, mortgaged and disposed of precisely in the same
way as legal interests.
Equity follows the law and as such a legal estate or interest takes procedure over
the equitable estate or interests. That is, in case of conflict between equity and law,
the law prevails.
An equitable right arises when a right vested in one person by the law should, in
the view of equity, be, a matter of conscience, vested in another. Where equities
are equal, that which is first in time will prevail.
Ques- 2 Discuss Remedies and procedure of equity courts.

Ans- Introduction

In the realm of English law, the concept of equity has long been associated with
principles of fairness, justice, and morality. One of the fundamental aspects of
equity is its provision of remedies, which serve to address legal wrongs and achieve
just outcomes where common law remedies may be inadequate. Equitable
remedies, administered primarily through the Court of Chancery, played a crucial
role in supplementing the rigid rules of common law with flexible and discretionary
relief. This essay will explore the remedies and procedures of equity courts, tracing
their historical development, discussing the various types of equitable remedies,
and examining the procedural aspects of equity litigation.

Historical Development

The roots of equity can be traced back to medieval England, where the common law
system often led to unjust outcomes due to its inflexibility. In response to this,
litigants sought relief from the King, who delegated authority to the Lord Chancellor
to dispense justice according to principles of fairness and conscience. The Court of
Chancery, presided over by the Lord Chancellor, became the primary forum for the
administration of equitable remedies.

Equitable Remedies

Equitable remedies are characterized by their flexibility, discretion, and focus on

achieving fair outcomes tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. Unlike
common law remedies, which typically involve the awarding of damages, equitable
remedies aim to prevent or remedy legal wrongs through various forms of specific
relief. Some of the key equitable remedies include:

1. Injunctions: An injunction is a court order that prohibits a party from

engaging in certain conduct or compels them to take specific actions.
Injunctions can be temporary (interlocutory) or permanent, and they are
 commonly used to prevent irreparable harm or enforce contractual
obligations.
2. Specific Performance: Specific performance is a remedy that requires a party
to fulfill their contractual obligations as agreed upon in a contract. This
remedy is often sought when damages would be an inadequate remedy, such
as in cases involving unique goods or real estate.
3. Rescission and Rectification: Rescission allows a contract to be canceled or
set aside, typically due to factors such as misrepresentation, duress, or undue
influence. Rectification, on the other hand, involves correcting errors in a
contract to reflect the true intentions of the parties.
4. Accounting: Accounting remedies involve the determination and settlement of
financial matters between parties, such as the tracing of funds or the division
of profits in cases involving breaches of fiduciary duty.
5. Constructive Trusts: Constructive trusts arise when property is held by one
party for the benefit of another, often in situations where the legal owner has
obtained the property through unjust means or breaches of trust.
6. Equitable Estoppel: Equitable estoppel prevents a party from asserting their
strict legal rights if it would be unfair or unconscionable to do so, typically
due to their own words or actions leading another party to rely on their
representations.

Procedures of Equity Courts

Equity courts, particularly the Court of Chancery, operated under distinct

procedural rules and practices compared to common law courts. Some of the key
procedural aspects of equity litigation include:

1. Discretionary Jurisdiction: Equity courts exercised a broad discretionary

jurisdiction, allowing judges to tailor remedies to the specific facts and
equities of each case. This discretion was guided by equitable principles and
maxims aimed at achieving fairness and justice.
2. Equitable Maxims: Equity courts operated based on a set of maxims or
principles that guided judicial decision-making. These maxims, such as
"equity follows the law" and "he who seeks equity must do equity," reflected
the underlying moral and ethical principles of equity.
3. Equitable Defenses: In equity litigation, defendants could raise various
equitable defenses to prevent or limit the relief sought by the plaintiff. These
defenses, such as laches (unreasonable delay) and clean hands (plaintiff's
misconduct), focused on fairness and equitable considerations.
4. Discovery: Equity courts allowed for extensive pre-trial discovery procedures,
enabling parties to obtain relevant information and evidence from each other.
Discovery in equity litigation aimed to facilitate the full and fair resolution of
disputes.
5. Trial Procedure: Equity trials were often conducted without a jury, with the
judge serving as the trier of fact and law. The emphasis was on fairness and
thorough examination of the evidence, with parties having the opportunity to
present their case through witness testimony, documents, and legal
arguments.
6. Appeals: Decisions of equity courts could be appealed to higher courts,
typically the Court of Appeal or, historically, the House of Lords. Appellate
 courts reviewed equity cases to ensure that the law was correctly applied and
equitable principles were upheld.
Conclusion --The remedies and procedures of equity courts have played a
significant role in shaping the development of English law and jurisprudence. From
their origins in medieval England to their modern manifestations, equitable
remedies have provided a flexible and discretionary means of achieving justice and
fairness where common law remedies may be inadequate. The procedures of equity
courts, characterized by their emphasis on discretion, fairness, and equitable
principles, have ensured that litigants have access to a forum where their rights
can be vindicated according to the dictates of conscience. While the strict
distinctions between law and equity have been largely abolished, the legacy of
equity continues to influence modern legal systems, reminding us of the importance
of fairness, justice, and morality in the administration of law.
====================================================================
Ques- ELABORATE the following maxim
1) he who seeks equity must do euity
2) delay defects euity
Ans-- 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.
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 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.
Ques-- "When equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail" Discuss
Ans- The maxim "When equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail"
encapsulates a fundamental principle of equity jurisprudence that guides judicial
decision-making in cases where conflicting equitable claims arise. This principle,
often referred to as the doctrine of "prior in time, prior in right," underscores the
importance of chronology in the resolution of equitable disputes. In this essay, we
will discuss the origins and application of this maxim, examining its significance in
equity law and its implications for the administration of justice.
Origins and Legal Context
The maxim has its roots in the historical development of equity in English law,
which emerged as a supplement to the rigid rules of common law. In the early
stages of equity jurisprudence, the Court of Chancery, presided over by the Lord
Chancellor, dispensed justice according to principles of fairness and conscience. As
equity evolved, a body of equitable maxims and principles emerged to guide judicial
decision-making, including the principle that the first person to assert an equitable
right should generally prevail when the equities are otherwise equal.
Application in Equitable Disputes
The maxim "first in time, first in right" is commonly applied in various contexts
where conflicting equitable claims arise. Some key areas where this principle is
invoked include:
1. Property Law: In disputes involving competing equitable interests in property,
such as claims based on equitable mortgages, equitable liens, or constructive
trusts, the principle of priority in time is crucial. The party who first
establishes their equitable interest in the property typically has priority over
subsequent claimants with similar equities.
 2. Contractual Rights: In cases involving breaches of contract or specific
performance of contractual obligations, the timing of the creation or breach of
the contract may determine the rights of the parties. The maxim may be
invoked to determine which party is entitled to equitable relief based on the
timing of their contractual rights or breaches.
3. Trusts: The principle of priority in time is particularly relevant in disputes
involving trusts, where multiple beneficiaries may assert equitable interests in
the trust property. The timing of the creation of the trust or the establishment
of beneficiaries' interests can be determinative in resolving competing claims
to the trust assets.
4. Equitable Remedies: When considering equitable remedies such as
injunctions or specific performance, courts may give precedence to the party
who first seeks equitable relief, provided that the equities are otherwise equal.
This ensures that litigants are not unfairly prejudiced by delays or strategic
maneuvers in asserting their equitable rights.
Limitations and Exceptions
While the maxim "first in time, first in right" provides a general guideline for
resolving equitable disputes, there are certain limitations and exceptions to its
application. For example:
1. Equitable Estoppel: The doctrine of equitable estoppel may operate to
prevent the strict application of the maxim in cases where one party has
detrimentally relied on the representations or conduct of another party.
Equitable considerations of fairness and unconscionability may override strict
chronological priority in such cases.
2. Change of Position: If a subsequent party has changed their position in
reliance on the actions or representations of an earlier party, courts may
consider whether it would be unjust to enforce the principle of priority in time.
This principle of "change of position" recognizes that equitable rights should
be enforced with regard to the overall fairness of the situation.
3. Equitable Fraud: In cases involving equitable fraud, where one party has
obtained an equitable interest through deceit or unconscionable conduct,
courts may intervene to set aside the fraudulent transaction, regardless of the
timing of the parties' actions.
Conclusion--- The maxim "When equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail"
embodies a core principle of equity jurisprudence that prioritizes chronology in the
resolution of equitable disputes. While this principle provides a general guideline for
determining the rights of parties with conflicting equitable claims, it is subject to
limitations and exceptions based on equitable considerations of fairness,
unconscionability, and reliance. By balancing the need for certainty and
predictability with the demands of justice and fairness, courts ensure that equitable
remedies are administered in a manner that reflects the underlying principles of
equity and conscience.
================

"When equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail" Discuss

WHERE EQUITIES ARE EQUAL FIRST IN TIME SHALL

PREVAILINTRODUCTION:The related maxim is concerned with priorities of
competing interests, that is to say which ofvarious interests prevails in the events of
a conflict, may be dealt with together. To understandthis maxim, a distinction and
understanding of the concept of “legal interest or estate” and“equitable interest” is
necessary.LEGAL INTEREST:A legal interest or estate is an interest in the property
required by a purchaser for valuableconsideration either by cash or marriage
consideration. It also includes mortgagee and lessee.EQUITABLE INTEREST:An
equitable interest is any interest which recognized from the Chancery court. An
example would be in the case of trust; although the trustee’s name would be
registered as the holder of the property, the beneficiaries acquire an equitable
interest over the trustee’s property. They have aright to sue the trustee for breach of
trust.

GENERAL RULE:Under general rule, the interest takes effect in order of their
creation. FOR INSTANCE, whose rights are created first will receive priority in the
court of equity. However, an equitable interestmight be defeated by a legal interest,
even though it has been created prior to the legal interest.For example, if the
purchaser of a legal interest is bona fide and without notice of any equitable
interest, then the equities are equal and legal interest
prevails.EXPLANATION:Where equities are equal , the first in time shall prevail – In
the absence of a legal estate in thematter and the contest is among the equitable
estate only, the rule is that the person whose equity attached to the property first
will be entitled to priority over other or others e.g., if A enters into acontract for the
sale of his house with B and then with C, the interest of B and C both
beingequitable, B will have priority over C because his attached to the property
first.
APPLICATION: 1:This maxim operates where there are two or more competing
interests, provided both theinterests are equitable.
2: When two parties each have a right to possess something, then the one who
acquired aninterest first should prevail in equity