Table of Contents
- Meaning of Equity
- Definitions of Equity
- Equity under the Roman Legal System
- History of Equity in England
- Equity in India
- Maxims of Equity
Meaning of Equity
The term equity basically means fairness and justice. Equity is a legal system for obtaining a fair result when existing laws do not provide solution. It means equalization or leveling down any arbitrary preferences or denial of Justice.
Principle of equity is followed while giving reservation. It is a means to reach as near as possible to natural or ideal justice, but equity is not natural justice. Equity is basically a way to reach natural Justice.
Equity therefore neither destroys the law, nor creates it, but just assists it. Aristotle terms equity as correction of legal system.
Relevant Case Law:
Held: The court held that court of equity must act within the permissible limits to prevent natural justice. “Equity is not past the age of child bearing” and an effort to do justice between the parties is a compulsion of judicial conscience.
Two Senses of Equity:
The word equity is generally used in two senses — one is a broad popular sense and second is a narrow technical sense.
Broad Sense: In the broad sense, equity resembles the natural justice or morality. But it is not actually at par with the principles of natural justice, because the matters of natural justice give space for the public opinions or conscience of each individual which are subject to various legal sanctions.
Narrow Sense: A portion of natural justice which is of such nature that it can be judicially enforced, for some special circumstances omitted to be enforced by the Common Law courts.
Definitions of Equity
- Plato: “Equity is necessary element supplementary to the imperfect generalization of the rules.”
- 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 supplied by the Court of Chancery”.
- Story: “ Equity is that portion of remedial justice which was exclusively administered by a court of equity as a contradistinguished from that portion of remedial justice which was executively administered by a court of common law”.
Equity Under the Roman Legal System
The Romans had also evolved a distinct and influential system of equity jurisprudence. In the early days, the kings of Rome were absolute monarchs, and all the powers of the legal system were vested in them.
Similar to the English Common Law, Rome also had specific forms of legal actions. However, over time, the laws became rigid, formalistic, and arbitrary. Many injustices emerged because the rule of the kings was considered final and beyond appeal.
In 366 BC, a significant shift occurred with the appointment of the first praetor. The praetor was appointed to act on behalf of the king and was empowered to modify and adapt legal rules according to the demands of justice and specific circumstances.
The praetor played a critical role in shaping Roman law by creating new rules and remedies that were more just and equitable. These rules were compiled and known as edictum novum, meaning “new edicts”.
This marked the introduction of a body of moral principles into the rigid framework of Roman law. Over time, the praetor evolved into a key judicial figure—an ancient Roman magistrate responsible for administering justice and overseeing legal matters with a focus on fairness.
History of Equity in England
Origin of Common Law:
After the advent of the Normans, the legal system in England began evolving. Judges started basing their decisions on the common customs of society. The reasoning of one judge in a case would be followed by others in similar cases. These consistent patterns of decisions gradually developed into a body of law known as Common Law.
Development of Common Law Courts:
During the reign of Edward I, three main courts operated under the common law system:
King’s Bench– This court offered relief on equitable grounds but it was not the primary administrator of equity. It provided remedies in exceptionally hard cases only.
Exchequer- Exchequer was more than just a court, the Exchequer was a key administrative department focused on collecting public revenue. It was headed by the Chancellor, it met thrice a year during major feasts. To initiate a common law action, a plaintiff had to file a writ with a prescribed fee before the Chancellor. By 1348, the King had fully delegated his equity jurisdiction to the Chancellor.
Common Pleas- This court handled disputes between private individuals and was a central organ of common law justice.
Deficiencies of Common Law:
- Provided no remedy or an incomplete remedy in several situations
- Reliefs were often inadequate
- Procedures were cumbersome and defective
Classification of Equity Jurisdiction:
Until the mid-14th century, common law courts were supreme. However, in 1349, the Chancellor was empowered to deliver justice on behalf of the King. This authority expanded over time, leading to the formation of a separate and independent Chancery Court in 1474. The famous jurist Joseph Story classified the jurisdiction of equity into three distinct types:
1. Exclusive Jurisdiction- In these cases, a right exists according to equity, but the common law courts fail to recognize or protect it. Examples include:
- Right of redemption in mortgages
- Trusts and equitable interests
- Rights of beneficiaries under a use or trust
2. Concurrent Jurisdiction- It is a kind of jurisdiction where the plaintiff can choose to approach either the common law court or the chancery court. Though the right itself is recognized at law, equity offers a more suitable or effective remedy.
3. Auxiliary Jurisdiction- It is a kind of jurisdiction where equity steps in to support or make the remedies granted by common law courts more effective. It acts as a supplementary remedy.
Equity in India
Long before the influence of Anglo-Indian law in the 1600s, the concept of equity found deep roots within the indigenous legal systems of India—namely, Hindu Law and Muslim Law. These systems incorporated fairness and justice not just as legal ideals, but as moral and spiritual principles as well.
Hindu Jurisprudence and Equity
The Hindu legal system is built upon the foundational idea of Dharma, as prescribed in ancient scriptures like the Vedas, Puranas, Smritis, and other classical texts. Dharma has a broad connotation, often representing moral order, righteousness, and justice—closely related to the concept of equity.
According to renowned jurists like Kautilya and Yagnavalkya, when there was a conflict between Dharma (scriptural text) and reason, it was reason that prevailed. This principle of interpreting law through fairness and logical reasoning was known as Yukti Vichar, which essentially embodied the spirit of equity.
- Where two Smritis conflicted, the deciding factor became popular usage—a form of social equity that emphasized practical justice.
- This showcased the flexibility of Hindu law and its orientation towards equitable outcomes.
Equity in Muslim Law
In Islamic jurisprudence, the seeds of equity were sown by eminent scholars like Imam Abu Hanifa. He introduced a doctrine called Istihsan, which means “to deem something preferable” and is often translated as juristic equity.
Istihsan allowed a jurist to depart from strict analogical reasoning (Qiyas) if it would lead to unfairness or hardship. It provided flexibility and humanity within the legal system, enabling the law to respond to real-world complexities and deliver just outcomes.
Thus, even before the formal advent of British legal influence in India, both Hindu and Muslim systems had evolved their own forms of equitable jurisprudence—proving that the quest for fairness and justice is truly universal and timeless.
Maxims of Equity
1. “Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy”
This principle signifies that equity ensures justice by offering a remedy whenever a legal right is violated. It’s the very foundation of equitable relief, seen in cases involving injunctions, specific performance, etc.
Indian Context: Reflected in Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, Specific Relief Act, and the Indian Trusts Act.
Case Law: Ashby vs White [(1703) 92 ER 126] — In this case a qualified voter was not allowed to vote, later he sued the returning officer and it was held that if law gives man a right, then there must also be a remedy of it.
2. “Equity follows the law”
This maxim implies that equity doesn’t override the law but supports it. Equity functions to soften the harsh edges of the law without displacing it.
Indian Context: Recognized under the Limitation Act, Transfer of Property Act, and Contract Act.
Case Law: Appa Narsappa Magdum vs Akubai Ganpati Nimbalkar (AIR 1999 SC 1963) — In this case Supreme Court held that equity cannot override clear statutory provisions.
3. “He who seeks equity must do equity”
This maxim emphasizes fairness from both sides. As per this maxim a claimant must also act fairly if they seek equitable relief.
Applicable Areas: Illegal loans, doctrine of election, equitable estoppel, restitution, set-off.
Case Law: Lodge vs National Union Investment Co. Ltd. [(1907) 1 Ch 300] — In this case court refused relief to a plaintiff who had entered an illegal loan agreement without fulfilling his part.
4.“He who comes into equity must come with clean hands”
This legal maxim provides that equity demands fairness, uprightness and good faith not only from the defendant but also from the plaintiff. This principle denies relief to those who have acted unethically themselves.
Indian Context: This concept is reflected in Section 23 of the Indian Trusts Act.
Case Law: Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AIR 1985 SC 504) — In this case it was held that if the person himself is guilty of misconduct, then he cannot get advantage of equity.
5. “Delay defeats equities”
This maxim means that justice favors those who are vigilant, not those who procrastinate. According to this maxim when a person delays in proper execution of his right, he defeats the chance of equity.
Indian Law: This doctrine is recognized in Section113 of the Limitation Act, Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Case Law: Union of India vs Kishorilal Bablani (AIR 1999 SC 517) — In this case court rejected a delayed claim, citing this principle.
6. “Equality is equity”
This maxim highlights that fairness often means equality in distributing burdens and benefits.
Indian Law: It can be seen in multiple statutes such as the Contract Act (Sections 42, 43, 69, 70, 146, 147), T.P. Act (Sections 45, 56, 82), Succession Act (Section 330), and CPC (Section 73).
7. “Equity looks to the intent rather than the form”
This maxim provides that equity looks the intention of the parties and not the exact words of the contract. This maxim puts focus on intention and not on substance.
Indian Law: This doctrine is reflected in Section 55 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, and Sections 114, 114A of the T.P. Act.
8. “Equity looks on that as done which ought to be done”
This maxim provides that equity treats an obligation or promise as if it’s already fulfilled when justice demands it.
Indian Law: It can be seen in Section 40 & 53A of the T.P. Act, Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, and Section 91 of the Trusts Act.
9. “When there is equal equity, the law shall prevail”
the maxim “where the equities are equal, the law shall prevail” means that when two parties have equally valid equitable claims to a particular right or property, the decision will favor the party with the stronger legal right. If both parties are equally deserving of fairness and equity does not favor one over the other, the court will defer to the established legal rules to resolve the matter. This principle prevents equity from overriding the law in cases where both parties have an equal standing in equity.
Example: Between a legal titleholder and one with merely an equitable interest, the court will favor the legal owner if both have equal equity.
10.“When the equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail”
This maxim provides that when both the parties have equal equitable claims, then priority is given to the party who firstly arose its claim.
Application: Often used in cases involving trusts, equitable mortgages, and beneficial interests.
11. “Equity acts in personam”
This maxim states that equity binds the person rather than the property. It compels a party to act (or not act) in a certain way.
Debate in India: Some jurists argue this principle applies in India; others contend it does not due to procedural differences.
Significance: It allows courts to enforce fairness beyond territorial limitations if the person is under their jurisdiction.
References:
Equity trust and specific relief by B.M. Gandhi
