MAXIMS OF EQUITY

Maxims can be defined as the rules of equity – the system of justice that complements the
common law.
The maxims of equity may fairly be described as a set of general principles which are said to
govern the way in which equity operates. They tend to illustrate the qualities of equity, in
contrast to the common law, as more flexible, responsive to the needs of the individual and
more inclined to take account of the conduct and worthiness of parties.
Maxims are applied only when the Court feels it appropriate. The maxims were not written
down in an organized code or enacted by the Legislature. They have been handed down
through generations of judges. None of these are in the nature of binding rules. For each
maxim, there are different instances of application.

Nalakanth Sainuddin v. Koorikadam Sulaiman (2002)

The Transfer of Property Act (TPA) embodies mostly principles of equity, justice and good
conscience in view of codification in India. These principles have been accepted in the
maximum sense.

I. EQUITY FOLLOWS THE LAW

(Aequits sequitur legem)
The main purpose of this maxim seems to be to keep judicial action within the boundaries
which have been established by the prior course of adjudication, in line with the precepts that
equity will follow the established rules and precedents and will not change or unsettle rights
which are defined and established by existing legal principles.
It indicates the relationship between common law and equity, which implies that equity
would intervene with the common law if justice required it to do so.
Equity will, where possible, ensure that its own rules are in line with the common law
principles.
As has been observed by M.R. Jekyll – 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.
Maitland said – Equity came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, to supplement it and to
explain it.
Snell said – Equity follows the law, but not slavishly, nor always.
Equity respected every word of the 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.
Equity, however, does not always, or in all respect, follow the law – nor is equity’s ordinary
pursuit of the law ever slavish.

Stickland v. Aldridge (1804)

At Common Law, where a person dies intestate who owned an estate in fee-simple, leaving
sons and daughters, the eldest son was entitled to the whole of the land to the exclusion of
his younger brothers and sisters. This was unfair, although no relief was granted by the
Equity Courts. But in this case, it was held that if the son had induced his father not to
make a will by agreeing to divide the estate with his brothers and sisters, equity would
have interfered and compelled him to carry out his promise, because it would have been
against conscience to allow the son to keep the benefit of a legal estate which he obtained
by reason of his promise.

Recognition in India
India has not recognized the distinction between equitable and legal interest. Equity rules,
therefore, cannot override legal rules in India. As for example, every suit in India has to be
brought within the limitation period and no judge can create an exception for this or prolong
the time period.
Similarly, no Court can confer rights which can be acquired only by registration of a
document on a party, without obtaining such registration (Section 17(1) of the Registration
Act, 1908).
In the context of setoff, the Bank as a creditor, failing to recover amount within three years
does not mean that the right to setoff is extinguished.
Thus, examples include the Limitation Act, 1963 and the Registration Act, 1908.

Appa Narasappa Magdum v. Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar (1999)

Under Section 32(f) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, the tenant would be
given preference to purchase the property within one year from the expiration of the
landlord’s interest in the property. In this case, the tenant requested for such period to be
extended for longer than one year stating that he was not aware of the death of the landlord.
 It was contended that the provisions of the Land Reform Act, being a welfare legislation
enacted for the benefits of tenants, must be construed in a liberal manner. This was rejected
by the Supreme Court of India holding that, the provisions of law regarding the period
within which tenant must exercise right to purchase land of widow landlady being clear,
relief cannot be granted on the basis of equity.

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

(Ubi jus ibi remedium – Where there is a right, there is a remedy)
This principle is at the very heart of Equity. Where the Common Law or statute does not
provide for the remedying of a wrong, it is equity which intercedes to ensure that a fair result
is reached.
The want of right and the want of remedy are reciprocal and it would be in vain to imagine a
right without a remedy. Hence, this means that no wrong should go unredressed if it is
capable of being remedied by Courts.
It thus involves two essential elements – (1) that no wrong should go unredressed, and (2)
such a wrong must be capable of being remedied by Courts.
The wrongs for which Equity was prepared to invent new remedies to redress were those
subject to judicial enforcement in the first place. If an adequate remedy exists in Common
Law, then Equity will be denied – the superior remedy will not be ordered when the inferior
one would suffer. A Court of Equity cannot, by avowing that there is a right but no
remedy known to the law, create a remedy in violation of law, nor can it create a
remedy where there is no legal liability. Furthermore, Equity Courts could not help when
there was a breach of moral right only.

Ashby v. White (1703)

A qualified voter was not allowed to vote. He sued the returning officer. Even if the
candidate who the Plaintiff wanted to win, won the elections, it was held that if law gives a
man a right, he must have a way to remedy it if he is injured in the enjoyment and
exercise of such right.

Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1985)

A classic case of injuria sine damnum, the illegal detention of Bhim Singh and restraint
from attending the Parliamentary session was held to be in violation of his Fundamental
 right and he was thus granted compensation of Rs. 50,000.

Cohen v. Roche (1927)

A shopkeeper entered into an agreement with the manufacturer of Maplewood chairs. The
manufacturer could not act on it owing to some reasons. There was thus a breach of
contract. The Court said that the remedy sought by the shopkeeper, that of specific
performance, is not correct and only compensation was to be granted. The Court reasoned
it by saying that the chairs required were ordinary ones, and thus the sufficient and
adequate remedy of compensation would allow him to purchase new chairs from
elsewhere. Although an equitable remedy was sought, the Courts held that compensation
was adequate.

Exceptions to the Maxim – Doctrine of Clean Hands, Doctrine of Laches

Recognition in India
1. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – All civil matters to be heard by Civil
Courts.
2. Sections 148, 149, 150 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Inherent powers
of the Court.
3. Indian Trusts Act
4. Specific Relief Act – provides for remedies such as Specific Performance, Injunctions,
etc.

III. HE WHO COMES INTO EQUITY, MUST COME WITH CLEAN HANDS
(Ex turpi causa non oritur action – From a dishonorable cause, an action does not arise)
While applying this maxim, the Court believed that the behavior of the plaintiff was not that
against the conscience of the Court before which he has come for assistance. The Court tests
whether before approaching the Court, the plaintiff’s conduct was just and fair. The conduct
must have an immediate and necessary connection to the equity sued for.
IV. HE WHO SEEKS EQUITY, MUST DO EQUITY
V. DELAY DEFEATS EQUITY
VI. EQUALITY IS EQUITY
VII. EQUITY LOOKS TO THE INTENT RATHER THAN FORM
VIII. EQUITY REGARDS THINGS AS DONE WHICH OUGHT TO BE DONE

Maxims IX and X express the principle regarding PRIORITY.

[Priority in Time v. Priority in Law]
IX. WHERE THERE IS EQUAL EQUITY, THE LAW SHALL PREVAIL
Where claims of the two persons are equally equitable, he who owns the legal estate in
addition, will be preferred. The person who is in possession of legal estate will get priority
over any equitable interests. Thus, when both the parties are equally entitled
X. WHERE THE EQUITIES ARE EQUAL, THE FIRST IN TIME SHALL
PREVAIL