Source: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/equity-law/equity-common-law-appliance-in-india-equity-law-essay.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:53:38+00:00

Document:
The scope of this paper is trace the history and development of equity and also its current relevance primarily for Indian legal system. It seeks to specifically determine the reasons if any, for the failure of the common law courts in bringing about social change and suggests certain important methods of overcoming the impediments. Changing attitudes of people towards common law which led to the formation of the law of equity where king would prescribed over the matters, in the cases where plaintiff were not satisfied with the decision given to them. In doing so this paper examines the origin, development and its application and relevance in Indian legal system. In India too certain laws has derived like Transfer of Property Act and more which had a reasonable effect in the working of Indian legal system. Finally and most importantly, by way of examining the development of equity, this paper seeks to demonstrate the principle that any development in any legal system which seeks to bring a change to the social values can be a success only if socio economic cultural situation in the society is made conducive for the operation of the law i.e. the law in isolation can never be successful in bringing about a social change unless backed by various socio economic and cultural factors.
Equity is that system of justice which was administered by the High Court of Chancery in England in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. … Every true definition of equity must, therefore, be, to a greater or less extent, a history.
Bispham, Principles of Equity, at 1, 2.
“Two distinct systems of law were administered by different tribunals at the same time in England till the year 1875. The older system was the common law and it was administered by the King’s Benches. The more modern body of legal doctrine developed and administered by the chancellor in the court of chancery as supplementary to and coercive of the old law was the law of Equity.
The common law courts which developed in English jurisprudence by the end of the thirteenth century were The King’s Bench, the Court of Common Pleas, and The Exchequer. Although each of these courts had jurisdiction over different subject matters, they were all regarded as “common law” courts, that is, courts governed by strict rules of law, a formalized procedure and bound by judicial precedent. At that point in time, the common law courts had no equity jurisprudence, and the Court of Chancery did not yet exist.
The law of England may be said to be composed of three great elements: common law, equity and legislature. the most important kind of legislature is the act of parliament(otherwise called a statue), though nowadays what is called delegated legislature, like the many government orders generally known as stator instruments, which come to be great important as well. Even a layman is not likely to experience difficulty in understanding the meaning of legislature.
Why was equity important in the development of English law?
As these Chancellors had no formal legal training, and were not guided by precedent, their decisions were often widely diverse. However, in 1529 a lawyer, Sir Thomas More, was appointed as Chancellor, marking the beginning of a new era. After this time, all future Chancellors was lawyers, leading to the development of a number of equitable doctrines. Criticisms continued in the court.
The inflexibility of the writ system, and the consequent expense that if a writ had a minor drafting error, it would be thrown out, for example, in Pinnel’s Case,  where Pinnel won as a result of Cole’s drafting error, even though Cole was legally in the right.
Many cases were lost on technicalities.
The common law did not allow oral evidence.
There was no power of enforcement.
It was easy to avoid the consequences of one’s actions.
The wager of law system was unfair.
There was no recognition of trusts.
As a result of the inadequacies of the common law courts, people petitioned the King through his Chancellor. This developed into a full legal system, and the Chancellor, as petitions increased, set up the Court of Chancery (1474), the rules of which became equity.
The Earl of Oxford’s Case 1615  , which decided that if equity and the common law were in conflict, equity would prevail (codified in the Judicature Act 1873 and currently contained in the Supreme Court Act 1981).
In the mid-19th century, the procedure of the Court of Chancery (discovery of documents and injunctions) was made available in the common law courts.
The Court of Chancery succeeded in stopping unconscionable writs through the injunction, by which the common law claimant was restrained from continuing his action. If the claimant defied the order he would be imprisoned for contempt. It was said that there existed two legal systems – one to do injustice, and the other stop it, and that equity was the conscience of the law.
“Equity in U.S. law can be traced to England, where it began as a response to the rigid procedures of England’s law courts. Through the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the judges in England’s courts developed the common law, a system of accepting and deciding cases based on principles of law shaped and developed in preceding cases. Pleading became quite intricate. If a complaint was not dismissed, relief was often denied based on little more than the lack of a controlling statute or precedent.
The Chancellor developed new remedies that were able to compensate plaintiffs more fully than the Common Law remedy of damages.
There were four main remedies known as injunctions, specific performance, rescission and rectification. Injunction was a court order that asked a person to do or refrain from doing something. Specific performance was an order that a contract should be carried out as agreed. Rescission was where the parties are returned as far as possible to their pre-contract position. Rectification was where the court will order that a document should be altered to reflect the parties’ intentions. There were also two other remedies known as trusts and mortgages. An account of profits is usually ordered where payment of damages would still leave the wrongdoer unjustly enriched at the expense of the wronged party.
1. Aequitaes est corectio legis generalities latae, qua parte deficit: i.e., Equity is a correction of the general law in the part where it is defective.
For a long time, the English Courts were guided by the doctrine ubi remedium ibi jus (where there is a remedy there is a right) but with the development of the Court of Chancery in England, this doctrine gave way to a more pragmatic and just doctrine called ‘ubi jus ibi remedium’ (where there is a right there is a remedy).
This maxim put a mandate on the seeker of equity. 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. Chappell v. Times Newspapers Ltd,  where workers wanted an injunction against their dismissal for going on strike refused to agree not to strike if the injunction were to be granted, and thus the injunction was not granted.
Equity only intervened when some important factor became ignored by the law. Thus, in the early stages of the development of the law of trusts, the Lord Chancellor and, subsequently, the Court of Chancery acknowledged the valid existence of the legal title to property in the hands of the feoffee (or trustee). The acquisition of this title by the feoffee was dependent on compliance with the appropriate legal requirements for the transfer of the property.
This maxim illustrates the intervention of the Court of Chancery to provide a remedy if none was obtainable at common law. The ‘wrongs’ which equity was prepared to invent new remedies to redress were those subject to judicial enforcement is in the first place.
In Cohen v. Roche,  specific performance was not granted for a contract for some Hepplewhite chairs (damages were granted instead) since they were not rare or unique enough.
The assumption here is that the party claiming an equitable relief must demonstrate that he has not acted with impropriety in respect of the claim.
Where two or more parties have an interest in the same property but their respective interests have not been quantified, equity as a last resort may divide the interest equally. The same remedy must be available to the other parties if the position was reversed. Flight v. Bolland  – in this case minors cannot be granted specific performance against adults, since minors’ contracts are in themselves unenforceable.
Equity did not intervene when, according to equitable principles, no injustice resulted in adopting the solution imposed by law. Thus, the bona fide purchaser of the legal estate for value without notice is capable of acquiring an equitable interest both at law and in equity. Equity is not a punishment.
Wroth v. Tyler,  specific performance was refused, since it would have forced Tyler to sue his own wife. Equitable damages were awarded instead, in lieu of specific performance.
Where two persons have conflicting interests in the same property, the rule is that the first in time has priority at law and in equity: qui prior est tempore potior est jure. – In the absence of a legal estate in the matter and the contest is among the equitable estate only, the rule is that the person whose equity attached to the property first will be entitled to priority over other or others.
Where a party has slept on his rights and has given the defendant the impression that he has waived his rights, the court of equity may refuse its assistance to the claimant. This is known as the doctrine of laches.
The court looks at the substance of an arrangement rather than its appearance in order to ascertain the intention of the parties. For example, a deed is not treated in equity as a substitute for consideration.
The principle here is based on the premise that if a party is under an obligation to perform an act and he performs an alternative but similar act, equity assumes that the second act was done with the intention of fulfilling the obligation.
If a person is under an obligation to perform an act which is specifically enforceable, the parties acquire the same rights and liabilities in equity as though the act had been performed.
“Most of the equitable principles and rules have, in India, been embodied in the statute law and has been made applicable to the extent of the provisions made therein. The provisions of equity in Indian statute books might have their source in common law or in equity or in an adjustment between the two, is immaterial.
The Indian Succession Act, 1925.
“Trust and trustees is a concurrent subject [Entry 10 of List III of Seventh Schedule to Constitution]. Thus, the Act will apply all over India except when specifically amended / altered by any State Government.
Many doctrines of equity are contained in the Transfer of Property Act. The English doctrine of part performance has been drawn in section 53A  of the Act. Section 48  and section 51  are also based on the equity principles. Equity of redemption in England was codified to Right of redemption in India  as in the case of Gangadhar v. Shankar Lal  and Prithi Nath Singh v. Suraj Ahir  the codified law was followed.
Section 180-190  of the Indian Succession Act  deals with doctrine of election in cases of will and section 35  of the Transfer of Property give effect to this doctrine in general.
It is important to bring to the notice for the researcher that though the English rules of equity have been substantially incorporated by the Indian Legislature, yet, there are many other rules of English Equity are either not been followed in India or are adopted only in a modified form, keeping in view the different ground realities of the country.”  .
English rules and decision to the relation which existed between the court of chancery and the courts of common law in England were very different from those between the high court’s and mofussils courts in India  as they were also the respective powers and functions of these courts.
The equity in England developed in way back sixteenth century and is working as a part of legislature now. The importance of equity was greater emphasized than the common law system. During the centuries it developed and gained an importance in England and slowly it reflected in Indian legal system too. In India it developed through various statues and today there are several acts which have passed and are working by equities principles. The legality of equity has radically gained in significance in recent years as well in the past. The importance of equity is greatly emphasized in India too which I have explained in my paper in part 4.1.In England equity stated to get less importance and it was then made as a part of legislature. Today, equity has itself gained an importance in India and various acts works with its principle.
"Equity Common law Appliance in India." LawTeacher.net. 11 2013. All Answers Ltd. 04 2019 <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/equity-law/equity-common-law-appliance-in-india-equity-law-essay.php?vref=1>.
"Equity Common law Appliance in India." LawTeacher. LawTeacher.net, November 2013. Web. 22 April 2019. <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/equity-law/equity-common-law-appliance-in-india-equity-law-essay.php?vref=1>.
LawTeacher. November 2013. Equity Common law Appliance in India. [online]. Available from: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/equity-law/equity-common-law-appliance-in-india-equity-law-essay.php?vref=1 [Accessed 22 April 2019].
LawTeacher. Equity Common law Appliance in India [Internet]. November 2013. [Accessed 22 April 2019]; Available from: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/equity-law/equity-common-law-appliance-in-india-equity-law-essay.php?vref=1.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.