Q. Explain the kinds of jurisdiction of equity court.

Ans. Before the passing of the Judicature Act 1873, the Equity had three-fold jurisdiction as
classified by the great American judge, Story. That classification found great acceptance.
According to Story, the three-fold jurisdiction of Equity was as under -
(1) The Exclusive Jurisdiction,
(2) The Concurrent Jurisdiction,
(3) The Auxiliary Jurisdiction.

(1) The Exclusive Jurisdiction - The cases where the Common Law Courts did not recognise
the rights and thus provided no relief, were covered under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Chancery Court. The rights enforced and the remedies granted in such cases were purely
equitable. The most important branch of this jurisdiction was the right of person claiming under
trusts.
For example in case of married woman's property given to them for their separate use, the Equity
recognised their rights in those properties by allowing it to be settled on her as separate estate;
and even in the absence of a trust, if the property was meant for her separate use, the husband
was regarded as a trustee for her.
The exclusive jurisdiction also included equity of redemption, mortgage, the doctrine of
conversion, election, satisfaction and marshalling of assets.
It should be noted that in all these cases the Common Law Courts did not recognise the equitable
rights and interests and thus provided no relief. The Courts of Equity therefore had the exclusive
jurisdiction over these cases.
(2) The Concurrent Jurisdiction - In some cases the jurisdiction of the Court of Equity was
concurrent with the jurisdiction of Courts of Common Law. In such cases the rights were
recognised by the Courts of Equity as well as Courts of Common Law as such those rights could
be enforced either at Common Law or in the Court of Chancery but in connection with which
Common Law Courts granted no complete or adequate relief whereas the Courts of Equity gave
proper relief. For example an order for the specific performance of the contract could be passed
in Equity but not in Common Law.
Similarly in cases of fraud, accident, mistake, partnership, recovery of specific chattels, set-off,
dower and partition, the Common Law Courts recognised and defined the rights of the parties but
provided no adequate relief. The Courts of Equity, on the other hand, not only recognised those
rights but also provided adequate relief. The Court of Equity claimed jurisdiction to give relief
against every sort of fraud except where it related to an acquisition of estate by means of forged
will which fell within the exclusive cognizance of the probate Court.
It should be noted that in such cases damages were granted to plaintiff by Common Law Courts
but in Equity, the plaintiff could claim the rescission of the contract and restitution of the
property. In such cases jurisdiction of Court of Equity was based on inadequacy of the legal
remedy.
(3) The Auxilliary Jurisdiction - In cases within the Auxillary jurisdiction, the nature and
extent of rights and remedies depended exclusively on legal principles. In the words of Snells:
"The Court of Chancery merely lent its aid as by compelling discovery towards the enforcement
of legal remedy for a legal right which owing to deficiency of administrative power of
machinery, the Common Law Courts were unable practically to grant"
STRAHAN has summed up the classification of the jurisdiction of the Equity Courts in the
following words -
"Where the right to be enforced and the remedy sought were both equitable, the matter was
within the exclusive jurisdiction, where the right to be enforced was illegal but the remedy
sought was equitable, it was within the concurrent jurisdiction; where both the right to be
enforced and the remedy sought were legal and the equity only intervened to help the plaintiff to
get the legal remedy, it was within the auxiliary jurisdiction."