S

UBJ
ECT:
-EQUI
TY,
TRUS
TANDF
IDUCI
ARYRE
LAT
IONS

T
OPI
C :
- EQUI
TYANDI
T'
SIMPORT
ANCE
S
ubmi
tt
edby
- S
ubmi
tt
edt
o-
Pr
ana
yTr
ipa
thi Mr
.Moha
mma
dPa
rve
jSi
r
Cl
ass
-B.
COML
L.B8t
hse
m
Rol
lNo-161073612
I
njuri
sdi
cti
onsf
oll
owingtheEngli
shcommonl awsyst
em,equit
yisthe
bodyofl
awwhichwasdev el
opedintheEngl
ishCourtofChanceryand
whichi
snowadminist
eredconcur
rentl
ywit
ht hecommonl aw.

Formuchofi t
shistory,theEnglishcommonl awwaspr i
ncipall
y
developedandadmi ni
st er
edi nthecentralr
oy alcourts:t
heCour tof
King'
sBench, theCour tofCommonPl eas,andt heExchequer .Equity
wast henamegi vent ot helawwhi chwasadmi nist
er edintheCour tof
Chancer y
.TheJudi catureRef or
msi nthe1870sef fectedapr ocedural
fusi
onoft hetwobodi esofl aw,endi
ngt hei
rinstit
utionalseparati
on.
Ther efor
msdi dnotef fectanysubst ant
ivefusion,howev er.Judici
alor
academi creasoningwhi chassumest hecontraryhasbeendescr ibedas
a"fusionfall
acy".

Juri
sdict
ionswhi
chhav
einher
it
edthecommonl awsystem di
ff
erin
thei
rcurr
enttr
eat
mentofequi
ty.Ov
erthecour
seofthetwenti
eth
centur
ysomecommonl awsystemsbegantoplacel
essemphasison
thehi
stori
calori
nst
itut
ional
ori
ginofsubstant
ivelegalrul
es.InEngl
and,
Austr
ali
a,NewZealand,andCanada,equi
tyremainsadi st
inctbodyof
l
aw.Moder nequi
tyincl
udes,amongotherthi
ngs:[
2][3]

Thel
awr
elat
ingt
oexpr
ess,
resul
ti
ng,
andconst
ruct
ivet
rust
s;

Fi
duci
aryl
aw;

Equit
ableest
oppel(
includi
ngpromi ssor
yandpropriet
aryest
oppel
);
Rel
iefagai
nstpenal
ti
esandr eli
efagainstf
orf
eit
ure;[
4]
Thedoctri
nesofcontr
ibuti
on,subrogati
onandmar shall
i
ng;and
Equit
ableset
-of
f.

Thelatterpartofthetwenti
ethcenturysawi ncreaseddebat eovert
he
uti
li
tyoftreatingequit
yasasepar at
ebodyofl aw.Thesedebat eswere
l
abelledthe" f
usionwars"
.[
5][
6]Apar ti
cularfl
ashpoi nti
nthisdebate
centr
edont heconceptofunjustenri
chmentandwhet herareasofl
aw
tr
aditi
onall
yr egardedasequit
ablecouldber ational
isedaspar tofa
si
nglebodyofl awknownast helawofunj ustenr i
chment .
Or
igi
nsoft
hecommonl
aw;

AftertheNor manConquestofEngl andinthe11t hcentur y,r

oyal j
usti
ce
camet obeadmi nister
edinthreecent r
alcourt
s:theCour tofKing's
Bench, theCour tofCommonPl eas,andtheExchequer .Thecommon
l
awdev elopedi ntheser oyalcourts.Tocommencel i
ti
gat i
onint hese
royalcour t
s,itwasnecessar yt of i
tone'sclai
m withinaf orm ofact i
on.
Thepl ainti
ffwouldpur chaseawr iti
nt heChancer y
,theheadofwhi ch
wast heLor dChancel l
or.I
fthel awpr ovi
dednor emedy( orno
effi
caciousr emedy )
,li
ti
gantscoul dsomet i
mesappeal directl
ytot he
King.Ev entuall
y,theKingwoul ddel egateresol
utionoft hesepet it
ionsto
theKing' sCouncil.Thesepet it
ionswer eeventuall
ydelegat edtot he
LordChancel l
orhimsel f.

Intheearlyhist
oryoftheUnitedStates,commonl awwasv i
ewedasa
bir
thri
ght.Boththeindi
vidualstat
esandt hefeder
algover
nment
supportedcommonl awaftertheAmer i
canRev ol
uti
on.U.
S.court
sdr
aw
ondecisionsofEnglishcourts,i
ndiv
idualst
atecourt
s,andfeder
al
court
sinf ormulat
ingcommonl aw.
Emer
genceoft
heCour
tofChancer
y;

Bythe14thcentur
yitappearsthatChancerywasoperat
ingasacourt
,
aff
ordi
ngremediesforwhichthestri
ctprocedur
esofthecommonlaw
workedinj
ust
iceorprovi
dednor emedytoadeser vi
ngplai
nti
ff
.
Chancel
lor
softenhadtheologi
calandcleri
caltr
aini
ngandwerewell
ver
sedinRomanl awandcanonl aw.

Bythe15t hcent urythej

udi
cialpowerofChancerywasclearl
y
recognised.Equi t
y,asabodyofr ul
es,vari
edfr
om Chancel
lorto
Chancel l
or,unti
l t
heendofthe16t hcentury
.Aft
ertheendofthe17th
century,onlylawyerswereappointedtotheoff
iceofChancel
lor.Ov
er
ti
me, Equitydev el
opedasystem ofprecedentmuchlikei
tscommon-
l
awcousi n.
OneareainwhichtheCourtofChancer yassumedav i
talrolewasthe
enfor
cementofuses,arolethattherigi
dframeworkoflandl awcoul
d
notaccommodate.Thisrol
egav erisetothebasi
cdist
inctionbetween
l
egalandequi
tableint
erest
s.

Dev
elopmentofequi
tyi
nEngl
and;

Itwasear lypr ov i
dedt hat,inseeki ngt oremov eonewhowr ongfully
ent eredanot her'slandwi thf orceandar ms,aper soncoul dall
ege
dissei sin(dispossessi on)anddemand( andpayf or)awr itofentry.That
wr i
tgav ehimt hewr i
ttenrightt ore-enterhisownl andandest abl
ished
thisr ightundert hepr otecti
onoft heCr owni fneedbe, hencei t
sv alue.
In1253, topr ev entjudgesf r
om i nventi
ngnewwr i
ts,Parl
iamentpr ov i
ded
i
nt hePr ovisionsofOxf ordthatt hepowert oissuewr i
tswoul d
ther eafterbet ransf erredtoj udgesonl yonewr i
tatat i
me, i
na" writfor
right "packageknownasaf orm ofact ion.
[cit
ationneeded]Howev er ,
becausei twasl i
mi t
edt oenumer at
edwr i
tsforenumer atedr i
ghtsand
wr ongs, thewr i
tsy stem somet imespr oducedunj ustresul t
s.Thus, even
thoughtheKing'sBenchmi ghthavejuri
sdicti
onov eracaseandmi ght
havethepowert oissuetheperfectwri
t,theplaint
iffmightst
il
lnothav
e
acaseiftherewasnotasi ngleform ofactioncombi ni
ngthem.
Theref
ore,l
ackingal egal
remedy ,t
heplaintif
f'
sonlyoptionwouldbe
peti
ti
oningtheKing.

Peoplebeganpet it
ioningt heKi ngf orr eli
efagai nstunf ai
rj udgment sof
thecommonl awcour ts.Ast henumberofpet i
tioner srapidlygr ew, t
he
Kingdelegat edt het askofhear i
ngpet i
ti
onst otheLor dChancel lor,who
wasl i
teral
lyt heKeeperoft heKi ng'sConsci ence.Si ncet heear ly
Chancel l
orslackedf ormal legal tr
ainingandshowedl i
ttl
er egardf or
precedent,thei rdecisionswer eof tenwi delydiver se.In1529, alawy er,
SirThomasMor e,wasappoi nt edasChancel l
or, mar ki
ngt hebegi nning
ofanewer a.Af t
erthist i
me, allfutur eChancel lorswer elawy ers.
Beginningar ound1557, r
ecor dsofpr oceedi ngsi nt heCour t
sof
Chancer ywer ekeptandsev eral equi tabledoctrinesdev eloped.
Chancer ycont inuedt obet hesubj ectofex t
ensi vecr it
ici
sm, t
hemost
famousofwhi chwas17t h-cent uryj uristJohnSel den'saphor ism:
Equi t
yisar oguishthing:forl
awwehav eameasur e,knowwhatt otrust
to;equityisaccor di
ngtot heconsci
enceofhimt hatisChancel l
or,and
ast hatislargerornarrower,soisequi
ty.'
Tisalloneasi ftheyshould
maket hestandardf orthemeasurewecal l
af oot,aChancel l
or'
sfoot ;
whatanuncer tainmeasur ewouldthi
sbe?OneChancel lorhasal ong
foot,anotherashor tfoot,athi
rdanindi
ffer
entfoot:'
tisthesamet hi
ng
i
naChancel l
or'
sconsci ence.

Acriti
cism ofChancerypracti
ceasitdevel
opedint heear
lymedieval
peri
odwast hati
tlackedfix
edr ul
esandthattheLordChancel
lorwas
exercisi
nganunboundeddi screti
on.Thecounter
-argumentwasthat
Equitymi t
igat
edtherigourofthecommonl awbyl ooki
ngtosubstance
rat
hert hantofor
m.

Li
tigantswoul dgo'j
uri
sdi
ctionshoppi
ng'andoftenwoul
dseekan
equitablei
njuncti
onprohi
biti
ngtheenfor
cementofacommonl awcourt
order.Thepenaltyfordi
sobeyinganequi
tabl
e‘commoni nj
unct
ion’
and
enforcingacommonl awjudgmentwasimpr i
sonment.
TheChiefJusti
ceoftheKing'
sBench,
SirEdwardCoke,beganthe
pract
iceofi
ssuingwrit
sofhabeascor
pusthatrequi
redtherel
easeof
peopleimpr
isonedforcont
emptofchancer
yorders.

Thistensioncl i
maxedi nt heEar l
ofOx ford'scase( 1615)wher ea
j
udgmentofChi efJust i
ceCokewasal l
egedl yobtai
nedbyf raud. The
LordChancel lor,LordEl l
esmer e,issuedacommoni nj
unctionf r
om t he
Chancer yprohibiti
ngt heenf orcementoft hecommonl awor der.The
twocour tsbecamel ockedi nast alemate,andt hemat t
erwasev ent
uall
y
ref
erredt otheAt torney-Gener al,SirFrancisBacon.Si rFrancis,by
authorit
yofKi ngJamesI ,uphel dt heuseoft hecommoni njunctionand
concludedt hatint heev entofanyconf l
ictbet weenthecommonl aw
andequi ty,
equitywoul dpr evail.Equity'
spr imacyinEnglandwasl at
er
enshrinedintheJudi catureAct soft he1870s, whi
chalsoser vedt ofuse
thecour t
sofequi t
yandt hecommonl aw( althoughemphat i
call
ynott he
systemst hemsel ves)int ooneuni fiedcour tsystem.
Eccl
esi
ast
ical
laws;

Ecclesi
asti
callawsar eabranchofEngl i
shlawandwer eEnglishlaws
thatdealtwit
hmat t
ersconcerningthechurch,t
hiswassot hatrel
igi
on
andl awwasdi ff
erenti
ated.Theselawsareconsideredanunwr it
tenlaw
ofEnglandandcannotbewi t
hheldinthecourtoflaw.Ecclesiasti
cal
l
awsar enotcurrent
lyestabl
ishedintheU.SasCommonl aw.

St
atut
eofUses1535;

I
nor dertoavoi
dpay i
ngl andtaxesandot herfeudaldues,l
awyers
developedapri
miti
vef orm oftrustcal
led‘t
heuse’ t
hatenabledone
person(whowasnotr equi r
edt opaytax)toholdthelegalti
tl
eofthe
l
andf ortheuseofanotherper son.Theeffectofthi
strustwasthatthe
fi
rstpersonownedthel andundert hecommonl aw,butthesecond
personhadar i
ghttouset helandundert helawofequi t
y.
Henr
yVIIIenactedtheStatuteofUsesi n1535( whi
chbecameef fecti
ve
i
n1536)inanat tempttoout l
awt hi
spr acti
ceandrecoverl
ostrevenue.
TheActeffecti
velymadethebenef ici
al owneroft
helandthelegal
ownerandt her
eforel
iabl
ef orfeudaldues.

Theresponseofthelawy er
st ot
hisStat
utewast ocreat
et he'
useupon
ause'.TheStat
uterecognizedonlyt
hefirstuse,
andsol andowners
wereagainabletoseparatethel
egalandbenef i
cial
int
erestsi
nthei
r
l
and.

Foranexampl
e,seeGodwy
nev
.Pr
ofy
t(af
ter1393)
:apet
it
iont
othe
Chancel
l
or

Compar
isonofequi
tyt
radi
ti
onsi
ncommonl
awcount
ri
es:
Uni
tedKi
ngdom;

Engl
andandWal
es;

Equityremainsadi sti
nctpartofthelawofEngl andandWal es.The
mainchal l
engetoi thascomef rom academicwr itersworki
ngwithinthe
l
awofunj ustenr
ichment .Schol
arssuchasPr of essorBi r
ksand
ProfessorBurrowsar guethatinmanycasest hei nclusi
onofthelabel
"l
egal"or"equit
able"beforeasubstantiver
uleisof ten
unnecessar y
.ManyEngl i
shuniversi
ti
es,suchasOxf ordandCambr i
dge,
continuetoteachEqui t
yasast andalonesubject .Leadingpract
it
ioner
text
si ncl
udeSnell'
sEqui ty
,LewinonTr ust
s,andHay ton&Underhil
l'
s
LawofTr ustsandTr ustees.

I
ndi
a;
I
nIndi
athecommonl
awdoct
ri
neofequi
tyhadt
radi
ti
onal
l
ybeen
foll
owedev enaf t
eritbecamei ndependentin1947.Howev er
,in1963
the"Specifi
cReliefAct"waspassedbyt hePar l
i
amentofI ndiafol
lowing
therecommendat i
onoft heLawCommi ssi
onofI ndiaandr epeali
ngthe
earli
er"Specif
icReli
efAct "of1877.Underthe1963Act ,
mostequi tabl
e
concept swerecodifi
edandmadest at
utoryri
ghts,therebyendingt he
discreti
onaryrol
eoft hecourtstograntequitablerel
iefs.Ther i
ghts
codifiedunderthe1963Actwer easunder :

.Recover yofpossessionofi mmov abl

eproper
ty(
ss.5–8)
.Specifi
cper f
ormanceofcont ract
s(ss.9–25)
.Rectif
icati
onofInstrument s(s.26)
.RecessionofCont racts(ss.27–30)
.Cancellati
onofInstrument s(ss.31–33)
.DeclaratoryDecrees(ss.34–35)
.I
njunctions(ss.36–42)

Wit
hthiscodi
ficat
ion,t
henat ur
eandtenureoft
heequitabl
erel
ief
s
av
ail
ableearl
i
erhav ebeenmodi fi
edt
omaket hem st
atutor
yri
ghtsand
ar
ealsorequi
redtobepl eadedspeci
fi
call
ytobeenfor
ced.Furt
herto
theextentthattheseequi tablerel
ief
shavebeencodi fi
edint ori
ghts,
theyarenol ongerdiscreti
onar yuponthecourtsorast heEnglishlaw
hasit,
"Chancellor'
sfoot "butinsteadareenforceabl
erightssubjectt o
theconditi
onsundert he1963Actbei ngsatisf
ied.Nonetheless,i
nt he
eventofsituati
onsnotcov eredunderthe1963Act ,
thecour t
sinIndi a
conti
nuet oexer ci
setheirinherentpowersintermsofSect ion151oft he
CodeofCi vilProcedure,1908, whichappl
iestoallcivi
lcourtsinIndia.

Thereisnosuchi nherentpower swiththecriminalcourt

sinIndia
exceptwi t
ht heHighCour tsi
nt ermsofSect i
on482oft heCodeof
Criminal
Pr ocedure,1973.Furt
her ,suchinherentpowersarev estedin
theSupremeCour tofIndiaintermsofAr t
icl
e142oft heConst i
tuti
onof
Indi
awhi chconf erswidepower sont heSupr emeCour ttopassor der
s
"asisnecessar yfordoingcompl etejusti
ceinanycauseofmat ter
pendingbef oreit
".
CONCLUSI
ON:

I
twasawonder f
ul andlearningexper
ienceformewhi l
ewor king
onthi
sproject.
Thisprojecttookmet hroughthevariousphr ases
ofEqui
tyandgav emeai nsightknowledgeofthetopic.I
twas
duetothi
spr oj
ectIcamet owhatEqui t
yisandhowi mportantit
i
sinthefi
eldoflaw. Iwouldal sol
iket
ot hankmypr ofessorMr .
MohammadPar vejforprovidinghisv
aluablesupportand
gui
dancethroughthecour seoft heproj
ect.