Law of Equity

Introduction
Equity itself is derived from a Latin word which means
Justice and egalitarianism. It is a system of law which
emanated in the English chancery and encompasses a
formal body of indispensable and procedural rules and
doctrine, that appendage or override common and
statutory law. The law relating to equity is largely
based on precedent. Since, it is not viable on the part
of the state to contrivance a comprehensive code of
law in order to supervise every eventuality. Wherein,
Law and Equity goes side by side. Equity is
consequential in the legal world because men and laws
are fallible. A Court of Equity, Chancery Equity that is
legally approved to apply the principle of Equity, as
opposed to the law, to cases brought before it. The
principles and rules emerging from the exercise of
residuary powers, which forms the living source of the
law of the state. Different jurists have their different
opinion related to the meaning of equity. The system
includes some portion of natural justice which is
judiciary enforceable.

Origin of Equity in India

In India, Equity has its origin from the relevant ancient
Hindu period, when some of the well-known legal
experts defined the old law and set out the new rules
for a better edible solution in case of any conflict
arising between rules of different laws. Hindu law has
never been undeviating and has accordingly introduced
equitable principles to meet the requirements of the
time. The smritis were the oldest attempt for the
compilation of law. In which smriti karas (the author of
Smriti) have actually conceded the principle of law. It
was stated that decisions should not be exclusively
based on scriptures, there should be principles based
on reasons. These reasons-based principles are
qualified with the term equity.

Equity under Indian Legal System

In India, it has been provided by the Hindu Law that, “in

case
of a conflict between the rules of Smritis, either may be
fol-
lowed, as reasonings on the principles of equity
(Yuktivichar)
shall decide the solutions”. Hindu law has never been
static
and has consequently introduced equitable principles to
meet
the exigencies of the time. The latter Smrikaras,
namely, Narada and Brihaspati have categorically
acknowledged the importance of equitable principles.
Brihaspati has said that “decisions should not be based
merely on scriptures. There
would be failure of justice if the principles based on
reasons
are not followed.” These principles of reasons can be
called • principles of equity. Kautilya also provides that
if the Dhar- ma-text is found opposed to judicial reason,
it fails and there the authority of reason prevails.
Yajnavalkya does not allow a • possibility of conflict
between Reason and Text. He limits the superiority of
reason or equity to a conflict between the Sas-
tras themselves.
As a branch of the legal system Equity refers to the
essence or rules arising from the administration
process of justice specifically in those cases where the
areas are not adequately covered by statute. Equity
besides supplements the law with quintessence of
liberty and goodwill. In India, as a matter of
administration, there was never a well-developed
Supreme court as most part of the law for the
application of the court is certified. There the court acts
according to the principle of equity, justice. The
Mohammedan law also partly lays down its origin from
the principle of equity. Equity and adequate ethics have
also been expressly laid down with laws. The English
laws also contributed to the development of Equity in
the jurisdiction of India. In Indian, the common law
doctrine of equity had been followed even after the
independence. The principle of law has been stated in
various laws such as:

➢ The Specific Relief Act, 1877

➢ The Indian Trusts Act, 1882

➢ The Indian Succession Act,1925

➢ The Transfer of Property Act,1882

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.

It is no longer possible to claim redress simply upon moral

grounds; it is necessary to show some principles recognized by
the system of Equity before a remedy can be granted.

General Principles of Equity

The subject matter of the equity can be grouped around some
legal maxims which embody the general principles on which the
court of chancery exercised its jurisdiction. Some of such
important maxims are as follows:

(1) Equity is a correction of the general law in the part

where it is defective – A right is a right only when it can be
enforced by the court. A remediless right is of no consequence.
Thus, in order to give effect to a right which is suitable for
judicial enforcement but which could not be enforced at
common law due to some technical defect, the Court of
Chancery developed the maxim ‘equity will not suffer a wrong
to be without a remedy.’

The Court of Chancery applied the maxim in those cases

where there was a failure of justice due to the deficiencies in
law, and to help the litigants in obtaining legal reliefs for the
violation of legal rights by offering facilities in evidence and
procedure which the common law courts did not secure. The
maxim is to give an adequate relief where the one available in
common law court was inadequate.

(2) Equity follows the law – Equity does not claim to override
the law. Equity generally operates by recognizing the legal rule
and adding some further rule, remedy or the other machinery of
its own.
 The Court of Chancery, which developed equitable law
never wanted to give the equity an overriding effect to the
common law. The jurisdiction of equity is debarred from
overreaching the boundaries established by the prior course of
adjudication.

(3) He who seeks equity must do equity – This maxim

put a mandate on the seeker of equity that he must, in his turn,
be equitable in recognizing and submitting to the right of his
adversary as no one can be justified in requiring another to be
conscientious without himself being so. A litigant, claiming
something by way of equity, must, himself be ready and willing
to grant to his opponent, that which the opponent is entitled.

Equity as a source of Law:

In England, equity originated in Chancery, where the

Chancel- lor sat as the “Keeper of the King’s
conscience” to give relief to the King’s subjects in cases
of hardship, by the application of the principles of
morality or conscience. But equity is not identical with
morality. Rather it is synonymous to justice.

The law enacted by the legislature, is susceptible to be

in- fluenced by the policies of the state whereas the
rules and principles of justice are not dominated by
such character. They contain the principles of natural
justice. The principles and rules emerging from the
exercise of the residuary power, forms an important,
distinct and living source of law in the state.

Equity as a source of Law:

In England, equity originated in Chancery, where the

Chancel- lor sat as the “Keeper of the King’s
conscience” to give relief to the King’s subjects in cases
of hardship, by the application of the principles of
morality or conscience. But equity is not identical with
morality. Rather it is synonymous to justice.

The law enacted by the legislature, is susceptible to be

in- fluenced by the policies of the state whereas the
rules and principles of justice are not dominated by
such character. They contain the principles of natural
justice. The principles and rules emerging from the
exercise of the residuary power, forms an important,
distinct and living source of law in the state.

TYPES OF EQUITY JURISDICTION :-

Exclusive Jurisdiction (New Rights) The Equity Courts enforced the

rights which the Common Law Courts failed to exercise. For
example: the equitable rights of the beneficiary or the equity of
redemption of a mortgage could not enforced in Common Law
Courts. The Courts of Equity enforced such rights. The jurisdiction of
Equity was known as the Exclusive Jurisdiction, i.e. jurisdiction
exercised by the Equity Courts to the total exclusion of the

Common Law Courts.

• Concurrent Jurisdiction (New Remedies) In the several cases

through remedies were granted by the Common Law Courts, but the
remedies were inadequate. In such circumstances, Equity developed
remedies on those remedies those were provided by the Common Law
Courts, such as specific performance of contract, an injunction or the
appointment of a receiver. These remedies which are often absolutely
necessary for the plaintiff to ensure that complete justice or real
justice. Otherwise the defendant always get full justice from the
Common Law Courts. This jurisdiction is known as the Concurrent
Jurisdiction of the Equity Courts, i.e. jurisdiction

exercised by the Equity Courts in conjunction with the Common Law

Courts.

• Auxiliary Jurisdiction (New Procedure) The procedure in the

Common Law Courts were defective. The procedure did not compel,
or even allow the defendant to take evidence. The Common Law
Courts limited the enquiry to the parties to the actions. It could not
compel discovery of documents. But the Courts of Equity acting in
personam to made definite improvements in the procedure, even
though the matter was pending before in the

Common Law Courts. This jurisdiction of the Equity is known as

Auxiliary Jurisdiction.