1

Introduction
In law, the term "equity" refers to a particular set of remedies and associated procedures
involved with civil law. These equitable doctrines and procedures are distinguished from "legal"
ones. A court will typically award equitable remedies when a legal remedy is insufficient or
inadequate.
Equity is a legal system for obtaining a fair result when existing laws do not provide solution.
It is a set of legal principles that supplement strict rules of law where their application would
operate harshly. equity maxim are legal maxims that serve as a set of general principles or rules
which are said to govern the way in which equity operates
Equity is a Latin word which means fairness, justice. It is a system of law originating in the
English chancery and comprising a settled and formal body of substantive and procedural rules
and doctrines that supplement, aid, or override common and statutory law. Equity is based on a
judicial assessment of fairness as opposed to the strict and rigid rule of common law. In cases,
where Common Law was not applicable, the Chancellor presided over such cases in special
courts called ‘Equity Courts’. Equity courts had a separate existence from the Common Law
Courts in England.
Definition of equity by various jurists
According to Plato: “Equity is a necessary element supplementary to the imperfect
generalization of legal rules.”
According to 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 which was supplied by the Courts of Chancery.”
According to Blackstone, “Equity is the soul and spirit of all laws. In this, equity is synonymous
with justice and sound interpretation of the rule.”1
Mainland say that, ‘’Equity now is that body of rules administered by English Courts of justice
which were if not for the operation of the judicature Acts, would be administered only by those
courts which would be known as Courts of Equity.”
According to Henry Levery Ulman “Equity is a body of rules, the primary source of which was
neither custom nor written law but the imperative details of conscience and which had been set
forth and developed in the Court of Chancery.”
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.
Firstly, equity has enforced rights which the common law Courts failed to enforce; Secondly,
equity has developed additional remedies to the common law for the enforcement of common law
rights. Lastly, the procedure in the Common Law Courts was defected, especially is not
compelling or even allowing a defendant to give evidence and in limiting the enquiry to the action.
So, we can say that- The general rule is that equity follows the law and the equitable interests
have in general the same incidents and attributes as have corresponding legal interests. They
devolve and can be settled, mortgaged and disposed of precisely in the same way as legal
interests.
Equity follows the law and as such a legal estate or interest takes procedure over the
equitable estate or interests. That is, in case of conflict between equity and law, the
law prevails.
An equitable right arises when a right vested in one person by the law should, in the view of
equity, be, a matter of conscience, vested in another.
Where equities are equal, that which is first in time will prevail.
Concept of Common Law
Downloaded by Rajni Sharma (audit@vizinindia.com)
 2

Common law, in this case, refers to the principles of law that have been evolved by judges
through their case judgements. These statements have been made and improved over a number of
years to better perfect them.
Thus, common law consists of a body of rules, which have been defined by customs,
judicial decisions and old scholarly works in the law. Common law is the unwritten law of
English which applies to everyone in the country.2
Origin and development of equity
By the middle of the 13th century the law administered in England, was in part customary Law
and Statutory Law. There were three kinds of Court in England. Such as-
The King's Bench;
The Court of Common Pleas and
The Exchequer
The whole common people of England filed a suit before the court of Common Pleas. The
justice of the court of Common Pleas judged following the Customary Law and Statutory Law.
But the court did not provide proper remedy at all and it was not adequate remedy for the
plaintiff or the defendant. The law did not provide relief for all inconveniences. No provisions
were made for matters of natural justice. In such cases, a petition was made to the king-in-
council to exercise his extraordinary judicial powers and developed of referring these petitions
according custom It was dealing with these petitions that the 'Chancellor' began his judicial
functions and the 'Court of Chancery' was established besides the Court of Common Law.
The 'Chancellor' acted according his judicial conscience or the principle of natural justice. The
principles and rules thus arising though the administration of justice in the Court of Chancery
were called 'Equity' in contradistinction in Common Law. In this way, two courts (Common
Law Court and Chancery Court judged parallel in that time. In the 18h century Equity was
composed as a legal system and up to 1873 there remained two separate systems of courts
namely-
Common Law Court.
Chancery Court.
But in 1873 both the courts were dissolved by The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875 and
created a new unified High Court of justice with the Chancery division- 1 of 3 divisions of the
High Court succeeding the court of Chancery as an equitable body. There were two courts
under The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875 and they were:
High Court.
Court of Appeal.
And the High Court had 3 divisions and they were:
The Chancery Division
The King's Bench Division and
Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division
These courts assigned with the powers of enforcing all the rights and remedies legal as well as
equitable.3
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:
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.
Downloaded by Rajni Sharma (audit@vizinindia.com)
 3

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.
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.
A litigant cannot seek equitable remedies as a matter of right as such remedies are at the
discretion of the court. The court before granting it, must enquire whether the plaintiff himself
would be prepared to act as a man of conscience towards the defendants.
Incorporation of the maxim in Bangladesh Laws
Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act provides that on adjudging recession of a contract, the Court
may require the party to whom such relief in granted, to make any compensation to the other
which justice may require. Section 30 and 38 also provide that on adjudging the cancellation of
an instrument, the Court may require the party to whom such relief is granted, to make
compensation to the other which
An equitable condition is imposed on the beneficiary to repay the trustee, the purchase with
interest and other legitimate expenses when he seeks a declaration on trust or retransfer of trust
property wrongfully bought by the trustee, by section 62 of the Trust Act, section 86 imposes the
equitable condition of repaying the consideration paid in transfer of property pursuant to a
rescindable contract.
According to section 35 of the Transfer of Property Act, that he who takes a benefit under an
instrument must accept or reject the instrument as a whole. This section incorporates the
‘Doctrine of Election’ dealt under a separate head.
Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, provides that he who makes improvement on any
immovable property believing in good faith that he is absolutely entitled thereto and in
subsequently evicted there from by a person having better title, is entitled to compensation for the
improvement made by him.
The Contract Act says that “when consent to an agreement is caused by undue influence, the
argument is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. Any such
contract may be set aside either absolutely or, if the party who was entitled to avoid it, has
received any benefit there under, upon such terms and conditions as the court may deem first.”
Further section 64 and 65 of the Contract Act are also based on the doctrine ‘he who seeks
equity must do equity’.
The maxim, however, does not apply when relief sought by the plaintiff and equitable right or
relief secured to or sought by the defendant belongs to or originates from two entirely separate
and distinct matters. Further, it is not applicable where the plaintiff seeks to enforce purely legal
rights.
The law helps the vigilant and the dormant – While a legal claim is not barred by any lapse of
time less than the prescribed statutory period of limitation, an equitable claim, on the other hand,
may be barred by delay on the part of the plaintiff seeking relief.
Delay, however, means unreasonable delay in claiming relief and an ordinary or reasonable
delay. A court of equity has always refused its aid to demands where a party has slept upon his
rights and acquiesced for a great length of time.
An unreasonable delay defeats equity. But such legal or equitable claims to which the statutes of
limitation apply expressly or by analogy the maxim ‘delay defeats equity’ does not apply. In such
cases, delay so far as it is within the statutory period will not defeat a claim.
Equity delights in equality – The English Court of Chancery, incorporated into the Equity
jurisprudence of English Law, the concept of acquits i.e. the notion of equality and impartiality as
conceived by the Roman jurists. The equity, thus, so far as possible, puts the parties to a
Downloaded by Rajni Sharma (audit@vizinindia.com)
 4

transaction on an equal footing, although the strict rules of law may give one party an advantage
over the other. Equality have does not mean literal equality, but it means ‘proportional equality’.

Downloaded by Rajni Sharma (audit@vizinindia.com)

 5

Place of the maxim in Bangladesh context

The Code of Civil Procedure, section 48, provides that where assets are held by a court and more
persons than one have (before the receipt of such assets) made application to the Court for the
execution of decrees for the payment of money passed against the same judgment- debtor and
have not obtained satisfaction thereof, the assets after deducting the costs of realization will be
reliably distributed among all such persons.
Other provisions giving effect to the maxim are section 42 of the Contract Act that applies the
principle of tenancy-in-common, section 43, 63-70,146-147 of the Contract Act and section
82 of the Transfer of Property Act, laying provisions relating to ‘contribution’
Where equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail – 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 e.g., if A
enters into a contract for the sale of his house with B and then with C, the interest of B and
C both being equitable, B will have priority over C because his attached to the property first.
This rule ‘where equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail’ is applicable in cases only when
equities are equal. Therefore, if equities are unequal in the sense that equity on the side of the
person otherwise entitled to priority is worse, that is, he is guilty of anything unconscionable or
unfair, he would lose his priority.
Application of the maxim in Bangladesh – Section 48, 78 and 79 of the Transfer of Property
Act, provides the example of this maxim.
Section 78 provides that where through the fraud, misrepresentation, gross neglect of a
prior mortgagee, another person has been induced to advance money on the security of the
mortgaged property the prior mortgagee shall be postponed to the subsequent mortgagee.
Legal estate prevails over the equitable estate – Where there is a question of selection between
equity on one hand over text of law on the other, the Court shall choose the latter. To say it
differently, the person in possession of legal estate is entitled to priority over any person having
merely an equitable estate in that property. ‘
Applicability of the maxim in Bangladesh – The ‘Doctrine of Election’, Marshalling and ‘set
off’, of Indian law are based on this maxim. The principle of the maxim has been incorporated in
section 40 and 78 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. According to section 40, where a
third person is entitled to the benefit of an obligation arising out of contract and annexed to the
ownership of immovable property, but not amounting to an interest therein or an easement
thereon, such right or obligation may be enforced against a transferee with notice thereof
gratuitous transferee of the property affected thereby, but not against a transferee for
consideration and without notice of the right or obligation, nor against such property in his hands.
Further, section 78 provides that where through the fraud, misrepresentation or gross neglect
of a prior mortgagee, another person has been induced to advance money on the security of the
mortgaged property, to the prior mortgagee is to be postponed to the subsequent mortgagee.
Doctrine of Election
In equity the doctrine of election is founded on the rule that a person who takes under an
instrument must give effect to every part of it. Thus, if a testator devises his own estate to A, and
A’s estate to B, A, must elect whether he will take ‘under’ or ‘against’ the will. If he elects to take
under and consequently to conform to all the provisions of the will, there is no difficulty he takes
the testator’s estate and gives up his own to B. If on the other hand, he elects to take against the
will, i.e., retains his own estate and at the same time claims that devised to him by the testator, he
is bound to make compensation out of it to B, whom he has disappointed by thus electing;
Streatfield v. Streatfield.
Story’s Jurisprudence describes the doctrine as “…. the obligation imposed upon a party to
choose between two inconsistent or alternative rights or claims in cases where there is a clear
intention of the person from whom he devises one, that he should not enjoy both.”
The purpose of the doctrine of election is merely to carry out the intention expressed by the grantor
in the instrument of grant. If one agrees to receive benefit, one must accept the reciprocal
obligation also. It is choosing between rights when there is a clear intention that both shall be
enjoyed. Maitland considers the doctrine of election to be based on the principles of
Downloaded by Rajni Sharma (audit@vizinindia.com)
 6

compensation.
Extent of equity’s application in Bangladesh
Besides statutory laws, courts in Bangladesh have been applying equity laws also. But their
nature and extent are different from of England’s. The principal of equity in England are
applied in Bangladesh subject to amendment as necessary. At present courts of Bangladesh
continue applying principles of Equity law besides similar of provision. But in spite of the nature
and extent being similar of England, there are some different characteristics between these
two. So, equitable principles of English court are applied in Bangladesh courts subject to
necessary amendments. Conventions as prevailing laws in Bangladesh are-
Injunction.
Appointment of care taker government.
Specific performance of the contract.
Part performance.
Trust Act.
Redemption of mortgage.
It is especially noticeable that the above mentioned laws are clearly inserted into provisions
of-
Specific Relief Act, 1877
Trust Act, 1882
Contract Act, 1872 and
Transfer of property Act, 1882, prevailing in Bangladesh.
But all equitable principles of England are not equally and fully applicable to Bangladesh
Courts. For example- Doctrine of satisfaction and Amemption of equitable principles are not
recognized in Bangladesh courts. But it is true that these principles have made a great
contribution in the realm— of legal development by removing inadequacy of common law,
harshness and complexity.
Practices of Equity law in Bangladesh
The provision of specific relief act Regarding injunction, cancellation, rectification and
recession etc. recognize the principles of equity in large scale. The guidance afforded by the
foreign courts in interpreting and applying the provisions of the Indian acts is therefore of
peculiarity valuable character.
The rules contained in the Trust Act, 1882 are substantially the same which were administered at
the time English Courts of Equity under the name of justice. There are certain equitable doctrines
which have been imported in the Contract Act, and some of them relating generally to the law of
contract are the doctrine of penalties and forfeitures as to time in a contract. Section 64 and 65 of
the Contract Act in nothing but the coded form of the Maxim “he who seeks equity must do
equity.” The transfer of property Act has also included many doctrines of Equity originated
in the Court of Chancery in England. Apart from such doctrines section 48 and 51 of the
present Transfer of Property Act are based on Equity. The English equitable doctrine of part
performance has also been drawn in section 53-A of the Transfer Property Act.
Differences between Bangladesh Equity with English Equity
Although a major part of Equity law of England has made room in the all rules or provisions of
Bangladesh, but it does not mean that any provision is not omitted. There are few provisions that
has been omitted, such as Ademption and Satisfaction of the Equity law of England, the
provisions in this regard, is not accepted by the parliament of Bangladesh. But on the other hand
here there is no difference between legal and equitable rights and interests. Rights of redemption
is not equitable title in Bangladesh here it is legal title. In case of the sale of property, the
purchaser under England equity is entitled to equitable title but it dost not apple in Bangladesh.
The nature of Banami transaction followed in Bangladesh is totally different from that of
England. To ensure proper justice, inherent power have been vested with the courts of
Bangladesh under section151 on the Code of Civil Procedure.
Influence of Equity law in the constitution of Bangladesh
Article 19(1) of the constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh has been included
“maxim of equity” specially. The maxim of equity is applied at the time of Administration
Downloaded by Rajni Sharma (audit@vizinindia.com)
 7

of justice like England. Where there was no sufficient common law, Equity law acts as an
auxiliary law of the common law. The maxim of equity in the court of England is applied in
the court of Bangladesh subject to necessary amendment. 4
The Twelve Maxims of Equity discus
Maxims of equity
The maxims of equity may fairly be described as a set of general principles which are said to
govern the way in which the equity operates. In contrast to the common law, the maxims are more
flexible, responsive to the needs of the individual and more inclined to take account of the parties’
conduct and worthiness. None of the maxims is of the binding rule.
It cannot be said that there is a definitive list of the maxims, different sources give different
examples and some works prefer to avoid the term altogether in favor of a broader discussion of
the character of equity. Above all, the maxims are applied only when the court feels it appropriate.
None of the maxims is in the nature of a binding rule and for each maxim it is possible to find as
many instances of its not having been applied as instances where it has been.
The role of the maxims was discussed in the case of Tinsley v Milligan [1993] 3 All ER65. In
the Court of Appeal, a flexible approach was taken to the application of the maxim, ‘he who
comes to equity must come with clean hands’, but in the House of Lords, this was rejected.
Such a flexible approach, depending upon such an ‘imponderable factor’ as public conscience,
would lead to great uncertainty.
The following is a list of maxims, together with some of the instances of their application. It is
not intended to be exhaustive. It will also become apparent that there is much overlap and in
some cases contradiction between the maxims.5
There are twelve maxims of equity. Such as-
Equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy.
Equity follows the law.
He who seeks equity must do equity.
He who comes into equity must come with clean hands.
Delay defeats equities.
Equality is equity.
Equity looks to the intent rather than the form.
Equity looks on that as done which ought to be done.
Where there is equal equity, the law shall prevail.
Where the equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail.
Equity imputes an intention to fulfil an obligation.
Equity acts in personam.
Maxim no: 1
Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy (UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM)
Introduction
Equity courts are the courts of natural justice. Whenever a right is infringed, a remedy is
available. There is always a remedy for a wrong. Only rights recognized by law can be enforced
by the court, Ubi Jus ibi Remedium is the crux of the whole jurisdiction of equity. It expresses that
every right will be enforced and wrong redressed by equity of not by common law then equity will
not provide a remedy against such law.
Meaning -- Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy means no wrong should be
allowed to remain unredressed if it is capable of being remedied by the court of justice.
Explanation
Ubi Jus ibi Remedium covers entire equitable jurisdiction. It explains that where there is a right
there is a remedy, rights and remedies co-exist one can’t not exist without the other.
Importance of UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM
The maxim ubi Jus ibi remedium led the chancellor to intervene in the administration of justice in
order to give a relief by common law inadequate and to help the litigant by offering facilities in
evidence and the procedure which ordinary courts did not secure.
Application of this Maxim
In Ashby v. White, wherein a qualified voter was not allowed to vote and who therefore sued the
Downloaded by Rajni Sharma (audit@vizinindia.com)
 8

returning officer, it was held that if the law gives a man a right, he must have a means to maintain
it, and a remedy, if he is injured in the enjoyment of it.
Condition
If a party has destroyed, lost or waived his right to an equitable remedy by his own act this
maxim will not apply.
It will not apply if there is a moral infringement being incapable of enforcement.Limitation of this
Maxim
If there is a breach of a moral right only.
Where there is jurisdiction of common law courts.
Where there is negligence of plaintiff.
Recognition in Bangladesh
The Trust Act.
Section 9 of Code of Criminal Procedure entitles a civil court to entertain all kinds of suits
unless they are prohibited.
The Specific Relief Act- provides for equitable remedies like specific performance of contracts,
injunction, and declaratory suits.
Maxim no: 2
Equity follows the law. Introduction
Equity has no clash with law neither it overrides the provisions of law, nor it is the enemy of law.
It adopts and follows the basic rules of law. It is said that equity is not a body of jurisprudence
acting contrary to law but is rather a supplement to law. It is a well-known rule that equity
follows the analogies of law. The equity came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it, to
supplement it, to explain it. Equity respects every word of law.
Meaning
The maxim indicates the discipline which the Chancery Courts observed while administering
justice according to conscience. Jekyll observed that, the discretion of the court is governed by
the rules of law and equity.
Maitland said, thus equity came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it, to supplement it, to
explain it. The goal of equity and law is the same, but due to their nature and due to historic
accident they chose different paths. Equity respected every word of 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. Snell therefore explained this maxim in slightly different way
Equity follows the law, but not slavishly, nor always. Equity is intended to supplement the law
and not to supersede it.
Explanation
The discretion of the court is to be governed by the rules of law and equity, which are not oppose,
but each, in turn, to be subservient to the other, this discretion, in some cases, follows the law
implicit, in other assists it and advances the remedy; in other against it relieves against the abuse,
or allays the rigor of it but in no case does it contradict or overturn the grounds of principle
thereof.
Application and cases law of this Maxim
It has application in the following two aspects: As to legal estates, rights and interest:
As regards legal estates, right and interests, equity was and is strictly bound by the rules of law
and it has no discretion to deviate there from. Equity does not allow an unfair use to be made of
legal rights so equity follows the in regard to the rule of primogeniture.
As to equitable rights and interest:
In many cases equity acts by analogy to the rules of law in relation to equitable titles and estates.
equitable estates are guided by the rules of decent as legal estate.
In case of, Stickland v. Aldridge, A, person leaves sons and daughters after died. The eldest son
was entitled to the whole of the land by exclusion of his younger brothers and sisters under the
rules of primogeniture. This was unfair, yet no relief was granted by Equity Courts.
The eldest son had induced his father not to make a will and giving a promise to divide the land
with his brothers and sisters. Then the equity court interfered and compelled the eldest son to carry
out his promise, because he takes it as a trustee for himself and his brothers and sisters.
Downloaded by Rajni Sharma (audit@vizinindia.com)
 9

Important aspects of this maxim:

Following are two important aspects of this maxim.
Equity adopts and follows the rules of law in all cases where applicable.
Equity follows the analogy of law.
Exception:
Where a rule of law did not specifically apply.
Where even by analogy the rule of law did not apply, equity formulated and applied
its own rules ..

Downloaded by Rajni Sharma (audit@vizinindia.com)

 10

Recognition in Bangladesh
Bangladesh has not recognized the well-known distinction between legal and equitable interests.
Equity rules in Bangladesh, therefore, cannot override the specific provisions of law. As for
example, every suit in Bangladesh has to be brought within the limitation period and no judge can
create an exception to this or can prolong the time-limit or stop the rule from taking effect on
principles of equity.
Maxim no: 3
He who seeks equity must do equity. Introduction
Anyone seeking assistance of a court of equity must, as a conduction to obtaining relief, do
justice as to the matters in which the role of the court is sought for. if anyone is willing to have
the justice of equity then he should always be ready to return equity to others.
Meaning
The maxim means that to obtain an equitable relief the plaintiff must himself be prepared to do
‘equity’, that is, a plaintiff must recognize and submit to the right of his adversary. Scriptures of
Islam also inform us to be conscientious:
“Woe to those who stint the measure:
Who when they take by measure from others, exact the full; But when they meet to them or weigh
to them, minis…” Application and cases law of this Maxim
This maxim has application in the following doctrines-
Illegal loans
Doctrine of Election
Consolidation of mortgages
Notice to redeem mortgage
Wife’s equity to settlement
Equitable estoppel
Restitution of benefits on cancellation of transaction
Set-off
Explanation
Illegal loans: In Lodge V. National Union Investment Co. Ltd., the facts were as follows. One B
borrowed money from M by mortgaging certain securities to him. M was an unregistered money-
lender. Under the Money-lenders’ Act, 1900, the contract was illegal and therefore void. B sued
M for return of the securities. The court refused to make an order except upon the terms that B
should repay the money which had been advanced to him.
Doctrine of election: Where a donor A gives his own property to B and in the same instrument
purports to give B’s property to C, B will be put to an election, either accept the benefit granted
to him by the donor and give away his own property to C or retain his own property and refuse to
accept the property of A on condition. But B cannot retain his property and at the same time take
the property of A.
Consolidation of mortgages: Where a person has become entitled to two mortgages from the
same mortgagor, he may consolidate these mortgages and refuse to permit the mortgagee to
exercise his equitable right to redeem one mortgage unless the other is redeemed. The right of
consolidation now exists in England but after the enactment of the Law of Property Act, 1925, it
can exist only by express reservation in one of the mortgage deeds.
Notice to redeem mortgage: Notice to a mortgagor to redeem one’s mortgage is an equitable
right of the mortgagor.
Wife’s equity to a settlement: There was a time when woman’s property was merged with that
of her husband. She had no property of her own. Equity court imposed on the husband that he
must make a reasonable provision for his wife and her children. But, now, Under the Law Reform
(Married Women and Tort feasors) Act, 1935, married women has full right on her property and it
is not consolidated with her husband’s property.
Equitable estoppel: A promissory estoppel arises where a party has expressly or impliedly, by
conduct or by negligence, made a statement of fact, or so conducted himself, that another would
reasonably understand that he made a promise thereon, then the party who made such promise has
to carry out his promise.
Downloaded by Rajni Sharma (audit@vizinindia.com)
 11

Restitution of benefits on cancellation of transaction: It is proper justice to return the benefits

of a contract which was voidable, and, equity enforced these principles in cases where it granted
relief of rescission of a contract. A party cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong.
Set-off: Where there have been mutual credits, mutual debts or other natural dealings between
the debtor and any creditor, the sum due from one party is to be set-off against any sum due from
the other party, and only the balance of the account is to be claimed or paid on either side
respectively.
Limitation of this Maxim
The demand for an equitable relief must arise from a suit that is pending.
This maxim is applicable to a party who seeks an equitable relief.
Recognition in Bangladesh
Under sec 19-A of the Contract Act, 1872 if a contract becomes voidable and the party who
entered into the contract voids the contract, he has return the benefit of the contract.
sec 35 of the Transfer of Property Act embodies the principle of election.
Sec 51 and 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
In Order 8, Rule 6 of the CPC, the doctrine of Set-off is recognized.
Exception:
Following are exceptions to this doctrine.
State legislature:
It cannot apply against state legislature.
Acts of parliament:
It cannot apply against the acts of parliament.
Contrary to law:
Where an act is contrary to law. it has no application.
Statutory prohibition:Where there is statutory prohibition it cannot apply.
Matter of government policies:
It cannot apply against the matters of government policies.
Factor of fraud:
If there is factor of fraud in a case, it will not apply.
Maxim no: 4
He who comes into equity must come with clean hands. Introduction
The person seeking relief must not himself guilty of illegal or immoral conduct with regard to the
same transaction which would dis entitle him to any assistance of the court. the court of equity will
take into consideration, the personal conduct of the plaintiff in the transaction in dispute and if he
had not sought the help of the court with clean hands, court will refuse to grant him relief.
Meaning
Equity demands fairness not only from the defendant but also from the plaintiff. It is therefore
said that “he that hath committed an inequity, shall not have equity.” While applying this
maxim the court believed that the behavior of the plaintiff was not against conscience before he
came to the court.
Application and cases law of this Maxim
This maxim has application on the following cases:
Specific performance:
If the plaintiff has been guilty of undue advantage the court of equity will refuse the specific
performance of a contract.
Illegality:
Where the parties to an illegal agreement appear before the court of equity for division of their
respective shares towards the property obtained. it is revealed before the court that they had looted
it at the road so equity refused to give any relief to any party.
Fraud:
In case of fraud, equity will not grant relief to a party who has committed fraud.
Benami Transaction:
Real owner is not allowed to recover the property.
Infant's misrepresentation: Where a minor fraudulently concealing his age and obtained a sum
Downloaded by Rajni Sharma (audit@vizinindia.com)
 12

from his trustee which he was entitled to only at the age of majority. he was refused to get the
assistance from the court of equity.
In Highwaymen case, two robbers were partners in their own way. Due to a disagreement in
shares one of them filed a bill against another for accounts of the profits of robbery. Courts of
equity do grant relief in case of partnership but here was a case where the cause of action arose
from an illegal occupation. So, the court refused to help them.
The working of this maxim could be seen while giving the relief of specific performance,
injunction, rescission or cancellation.
Limitation
General or total conduct of the plaintiff is not to be considered. It will be seen whether he was of
clean hands in the same suit he brought or not. Brandies J. in Loughran v. Loughran said
that Equity does not demand that its suitors shall have led blameless lives.
Exception
If the transaction is an against public policy
If the party repents for his conduct before his unjust plans are carried out.
Recognition
Section 23 of the Trust Act- An infant cannot setup a defence of the invalidity of the receipt
given by him.
Section 17, 18 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877- Plaintiff’s unfair conduct will disentitle
him to an equitable relief of specific performance of the contract.
Distinction between maxim- He who seeks equity must do equity Vs. He who comes into equity
must come with clean hands.

He who seeks equity must do equity He who comes into equity must come with
clean hands
1. It is applicable when both the plaintiff and1 . It is applicable when the defendant has no
the defendant have claims of equitable relief separate claim to relief and the plaintiff’s
against each other. conduct is unfair.

2. It exposes the condition subsequent to the 2. It is a condition precedent to seeking

relief sought. equitable relief.
3. It refers to the plaintiff’s conduct as the 3. It refers to the plaintiff’s conduct before he
court thinks it ought to be, after he comes to the approaches the court.
court.
4. The plaintiff has to mould his behavior 4. If the plaintiff’s conduct is unfair, it would
according to the impositions by the court. not entitle him to the relief sought.

5. The plaintiff has an option or a choice 6. The conduct of the plaintiff snatched his

before him either to submit to choice from him. His

the conditions put by the court, or to equitable right therefore neither be
get out of recognized nor
the court. enforced.
6. This maxim looks to the future. 6. This maxim looks at the past.

Downloaded by Rajni Sharma (audit@vizinindia.com)

 13
Maxim no: 5
Delay defeats equities.
EQUITY AIDS THE VIGILANT, NOT THE INDOLENT
Introduction
If there is an unreasonable delay in bringing proceedings the case may be disallowed in equity.
Acquiescence is where one party breaches another's rights and that party doesn't take an action against
them they may not be allowed to pursue this claim at a later stage. These may be used as defenses in
relation to equity cases. For a defence of laches courts must decide whether the plaintiff has delayed
unreasonably in bringing forth their claim and the defence of acquiescence can be used if the actions of
the defendant suggest that they are not going ahead with the claim so it is reasonable for the other party to
assume that there is no claim.
Meaning
A Latin term in this regard is “Vigilantibus, non dormentibus, jura subvenient.” which means “Equity aids
the vigilant and not the indolent”. So, if one sleeps on his rights, his rights will slip away from him. Legal
claims are barred by statutes of limitation and equitable claims may be barred not only by limitation law
but also by unreasonable delay, called laches.
Application of this Maxim
Application and cases such as-
Ademption.
Doctrine of presumption of advancement.
Relief against defective execution of power of appointment.
Ademption- Ademption is a transfer of property which operates as a complete or pro tanto substitution
for a gift previously made by the will of the donor.
Example:
X by his will leaves his daughter Y one-third of his residuary estate. Thereafter on Y’s marriage X gives
Y 20,000 Taka. X dies. 20,000 Taka is an ademption -complete or proportionately to the gift of one-third
share of the residuary estate of X.
Presumption of advancement- When a purchase or transfer of property without consideration is made
by a father or a person in loco parentis, to or in the name of a child, a presumption arises. And the
presumption is that it was for the benefit of the child. Such presumption, is known as ‘advancement’. The
doctrine applies to cases of parent and child, husband and wife, of mother and child and even to
illegitimate child.
Relief against defective execution of power of appointment- A power is an authority vested in a person
to deal with or dispose of property not his own. A power may be legal or equitable but after 1925 all
powers of appointment are necessarily equitable.
Example:
A holds 50,000 Taka upon trust to divide among a certain class of persons. A has no option in this matter.
He is bound to carry out the trust. On his failing to do so, the court will see that the property is duly
divided.
Two prevalent Doctrines
Doctrine of Acquiescence: Acquiescence is an assent to an infringement of rights, either express or
implied from conduct, by which right to equitable relief is normally lost. It takes place when a person
with full knowledge of his Own rights and of any acts which infringe them, has, either at the time or after
infringement, by his conduct led the person responsible for the infringement to believe that he has
abandoned his rights. It is different from agreement, concurrence or from coinciding.
Doctrine of Laches: Delay which is sufficient to prevent a party from obtaining an equitable remedy is
technically called laches (literal meaning: slackness). Plaintiff’s unreasonable delay is a weapon of
defence by the defendant against the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is passive and apathetic to his rights for a
considerably longer time than prescribed, his delay does not remain a mere delay but a delay that has
worked to his disadvantage.
DELAY WHEN FATAL
In the following cases delay is fatal for a party desirous of enforcing his rights:
Loss of evidence:
As a result of delay when the available evidence is lost or destroyed.
Waiver of right:

Downloaded by Rajni Sharma (audit@vizinindia.com)

 14
When the other party is induced to assume or draw an inference from one’s conduct that one has waived
his rights.
Release of right:
Delay provides a ground to the other party and leads him to believe that one has agreed to abandon and
release his right
Loss of witness:
Loss of witnesses could be occurred in case of death.
Exception
Following are the exceptions to the maxim:
Where the law of limitation expressly applies.
Where it applies by analogy, and
Where the law of limitation does not apply but the cases are governed by ordinary rules of latches.
Limitation
This maxim does not apply when-
where the law of limitation expressly applies
where it applies by analogy, and
where the law of limitation does not apply but the cases are governed by ordinary rules of laches.
Recognition
The Succession Act,1925.
The Trust Act- Where a person contracts to buy property to be held on trust for certain beneficiaries and
buys the property accordingly, he must hold the property for their benefit to the extent necessary to give
effect to the contract. Equity thus imputes an intention to fulfill an obligation.
Maxim no: 6
Equality is equity.
EQUITY DELIGHTETH IN EQUALITY
Introduction
Equity always tries to put the litigating parties on an equal level so for as their rights and liabilities are
concerned. equity acts in such manner that no party gets an under advantage over the other party. benefits
and burden of common interests and obligation cannot be imposed upon and pressed against any one.
PLATO defined that, "If you cannot find any other, equality is the proper basis. "
Meaning
"Equality is equity" is also expressed "Equity delighteth in equality" which means that as for as possible
equity would put the litigating parties at equal pedestal. it expresses the object of both law and equity in
order to effectuate distribution of property and losses proportionate to several claims and liabilities of the
parties concerned so equality therefore means proportionate equality.
Justice Fry said, “When I say equality, I do not mean equality in its simplest form, but which has been
sometimes called proportionate equity.”
Application of this Maxim.
Application of this maxim can be understood from the following:
Equal distribution of joint funds and joint purchases.
Contribution between co-trustees, co-sureties and co-contractors.
Rateable distribution of legacies.
Marshalling of assets.
Recognition in Bangladesh
The Contract Act, 1872, section 42, 43,69,70,146,147 recognitions of this Maxim.
The Trust Act, 1882
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 56 marshalling by subsequent
purchaser If the owner of two or more properties mortgages them to one person and then sells one or
more of the properties to another person, the buyer is in the absence of a contract to the contrary, entitled
to have the mortgage- debt satisfied out of the property or properties not sold to him, so far as the same
will extend, but not so as to prejudice the rights of the mortgagee or persons claiming under him or of any
other person who has for consideration acquired an interest in any of the properties.
Code of civil procedure, 1908, Section 73: Proceeds of execution-sale to be ratably
distributed among decree-holders (1) Where assets are held by a Court and more persons than one have,
before the receipt of such assets, made application to the Court for the execution of decrees for the

Downloaded by Rajni Sharma (audit@vizinindia.com)

 15
payment of money passed against the same judgment-debtor and have not obtained satisfaction thereof,
the assets, after deducting the costs of realization, shall be ratably distributed among all such persons.
Maxim no: 7
Equity looks to the intent rather than the form. Introduction
This maxim is characteristic of the greater freedom of action of the equity courts, as compared with the
common law courts, and of their efforts to do substantial justice rather than enforce technical rules.
Meaning--- Common law was very rigid and inflexible. It could not respond favorably to the demand of
time. It regarded the form of a transaction to be more important than its substance. It looked to the very
letter of the agreement and not the intention behind it. On the other hand, Equity looks to the spirit not to
the letter, it looks to the intention of parties and not to the words.
Application of this Maxim.In case of sale of land, if a party fails to complete it within the fixed for it, he
is at Common Law, in breach of the contract, but equity does not take this rigid attitude. It allows a
reasonable time to the party to complete it. The application can be seen in the following instances-
Relief against penalties and forfeitures.
Relief in regard to precatory trust.
Relief in regard to mortgages, the doctrine of equity of redemption and the doctrine of clogs on
redemption.
Attitude in regard to statute of frauds.
Explanation
Relief against penalties and forfeitures-
Common Law courts insisted on the literal form of the contract that if the contract is breached, certain
amount must be given as compensation, though the actual loss is not that much. Equity interpret the
purpose and intent of the contract itself. The principal object of the contract is to perform it and not the
compensation. The compensation is a subsidiary matter.
Precatory trust-
A trust is created with-
an intention on his part to create a trust thereby,
the purpose of the trust,
the beneficiary, and
the trust property. Where an author uses words such as ‘I hope’, ‘I request’ or ‘I recommend’ the first
condition is missing. In cases where subsequent ingredients are found, in early days, it was held by the
equity courts that he had the intention. This view is in use now but not as liberally as before.
Relief in regard to mortgages-
The mortgagor has a right to obtain his property back by payment of the debt and that is his right of
redemption. The mortgagor’s right of redemption is guarded by courts and this has been expressed in a
well-known legal maxim, “Once a mortgage, always a mortgage, and nothing but a mortgage”.
Recognition in Bangladesh
Sec 55 of the Contract Act- If time is the essence of the contract, and it is not performed within the
stipulated time, the contract or part of it which is unperformed would be voidable. If time is not the
essence, the contract will not be voidable but entitles the promise to damages.
Section 74 of the Contract Act- only a reasonable compensation can be claimed.
Sec 114-A of the Transfer of Property Act- Forfeiture clauses in a lease.
Maxim no: 8
Equity looks on that as done which ought to be done. Introduction
This maxim means that when individuals are required, by their agreements or by law to have done some
act of legal significance, Equity will regard it as having been done as it ought to have, even before it has
actually happened. This makes possible the legal phenomenon of equitable conversion. Sometime this is
phrased as "equity regards as done what should have been done."
Meaning
If someone undertakes an obligation for the other, equity courts look on it as done and as producing the
same results as if the obligation had been actually performed. Equity courts therefore look to the acts of
the person bound by his conscience and interpret and construe them in such a way that they amount to
what ought to be done. Essentials requirements to invoke the maxim: The essentials requirements to
put the maxim in action are enlisted below:
There should be a contract to transfer legal title.

Downloaded by Rajni Sharma (audit@vizinindia.com)

 16
There must be a substantial evidence to prove the existence of that contract.
This contract should be capable to enforce.
The suit must be brought by the parties within the specific time.
The title so sought to obtain must have legal support.
Scope of the maxim
The scope of this maxim is limited because it recognizes the right of performance of an agreement
between the parties to the contract only. The maxim is applicable only to the contractual obligations;
favoring the person who is entitled to get enforced a contract against a person who is under an obligation
to perform it.
Illustration
If A makes T trustee leaving 50,000 RUPEES to purchase a land for the use of B. T does not purchase the
land and by the time, B dies leaving all immovable property to X and all movable property to Y. Now,
who should get the 50,000 rupees? Equity in such cases would definitely regard the purchase of land
which ought to have been made as made. The money thus goes to X.
Application of this Maxim
The working of this maxim can be seen-
The doctrine of conversion
Executory contracts
Doctrine of part performance
Doctrine of conversion
Doctrine of conversion can convert the money into immovable property and immovable property into
money.
Executory contracts
Assignment of future property: When an assignment of property was made for consideration equity
treated it as a contract to assign. When the property came into existence in such a contract it was treated
as a complete assignment.
Agreement for a transfer: An agreement for lease could be treated as a lease in equity.
Doctrine of part performance
Under the equitable doctrine of part performance contracts pertaining to land were allowed to be formed
by oral evidence where one of the parties did acts of pats performance.
Recognition
The Transfer of Property Act- A Contracts to sell Sultanpur to B. While the contract is still in force, he
sells Sultanpur to C, who has notice of the contract. B may enforce the contract against C to the same
extent as against A.
The Specific Relief Act- Section 12 relating to the specific performance of part of a contract also
illustrates the application of the maxim.
The Trust Act- Where a person acquires property with notice that another person has entered into an
existing contract affecting that property, the former must hold the property for the benefit of the latter.
Maxim no: 9
Where there is equal equity, the law shall prevail. Introduction
This maxim means that “when the conflicting interests of two or more parties are supported by equitable
pleas of equal value, equity being unable to prefer one to the other would allow the conflicting equities to
cancel out and leave law to take its course”.
Explanation
Where one thing follows two claimants on the base of equal equity, equity shall follow the law and legal
right shall be preceded. Law provides relief to those who claims on the base of legal right.
According to this maxim if legal right is equal to equitable rights, legal right shall remain there. It means
the person bearing legal right shall precede however equity is under law.
Illustration
For instance, if A sells to C land, over which B has a right of way, C takes the land subject to B’s right,
although he was ignorant of the right at the time of purchase. But the rule is different as regards equitable
rights. It is well established rule that a purchase for valuable consideration without notice of prior
equitable right, obtaining the legal estate at the time of his purchase, is entitled to priority in equity as well
as at law. In such a case equity follows the law, the purchaser’s conscience not being in any was affected
by the equity.

Downloaded by Rajni Sharma (audit@vizinindia.com)

 17
Application of this Maxim
This maxim has certain applications such as:
Dispute in transfer of property: When both the contestants are equally entitled to obtain help from
courts of equity (because their equities are equal), the party who has law in his favor will succeed.
For example, A, agrees with B to sell his property for Rs. 5,000/-. Therefore, in breach of the above
agreement, A sells the property to C for B Rs. 6,000/- and making a document hands over the possession
of the property to C. As a result of the agreement B did not get any legal interest in the property. B has only
an equitable interest in his favor binding A conscience. C, on the contrary, as a result of his agreement with
A, gets the legal interest and has executed a document and obtained possession of the property. B’s interest
is an equitable with law in his favor. Naturally, therefore, in a conflict between B and C, C has superior
interest as compared to that of B. Thus equitable interest is not as strong as a legal interest and so,
according to the maxim the law shall prevail.
It may be noted that the doctrine of Election, Marshaling, and Set Off are based on the maxim under
discussion
In contradiction of legal and equitable right: This maxim is used where equitable and legal rights
conflict and precedence go to legal right. Equities must be equal by there should be conflict of legal and
equitable rights. It does not apply where priority of time in case of equity is determinant factor in relief.
Transfer of property cases: Section 78 of Transfer of Property Act is based on this maxim. It enacts
that “where though the fraud, misrepresentation, or gross neglect of a prior mortgagee, another person
has been induced to advance money on the security of the mortgaged property, the prior mortgagee shall
be postponed to the subsequent mortgagee.
Section 53 of Transfer of Property Act is also based upon this maxim.
It enacts that “every transfer of immovable property made with intent to defeat or delay the creditors of the
transferor shall be void-able at the option of any creditor so defeated or delayed.
Exception
This maxim has two exceptions as follows:
Prior equitable and subsequent legal right: Where interest in legal property comes subsequently,
cannot attain precedence. Person, who acquires equitable right in the presence of legal right, he procures
breach of duty.
In case of negligence or fraud legal property extinct priority right if equitable property comes subsequently.
Maxim no: 10
Where the equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail. Introduction
The related maxim is concerned with priorities of competing interests, that is to say which of various
interests prevails in the events of a conflict, may be dealt with together. To understand this maxim, a
distinction and understanding of the concept of “legal interest or estate” and “equitable interest” is
necessary.
Legal interest
A legal interest or estate is an interest in the property required by a purchaser for valuable consideration
either by cash or marriage consideration. It also includes mortgagee and lessee.
Equitable interest
An equitable interest is any interest which recognized from the Chancery court. An example would be in
the case of trust; although the trustee’s name would be registered as the holder of the property, the
beneficiaries acquire an equitable interest over the trustee’s property. They have a right to sue the trustee
for breach of trust.
General rule
Under general rule, the interest takes effect in order of their creation. FOR INSTANCE, whose rights are
created first will receive priority in the court of equity. However, an equitable interest might be defeated
by a legal interest, even though it has been created prior to the legal interest. For example, if the purchaser
of a legal interest is bona fide and without notice of any equitable interest, then the equities are equal and
legal interest prevails.
Explanation
Where equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail – 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 e.g., if A enters into a contract for the sale of
his house with B and then with C, the interest of B and C both being equitable, B will have priority over

Downloaded by Rajni Sharma (audit@vizinindia.com)

 18
C because his attached to the property first.
Application of this Maxim

Downloaded by Rajni Sharma (audit@vizinindia.com)

 19

This maxim operates where there are two or more competing interests, provided both the interests
are equitable.
When two parties each have a right to possess something, then the one who acquired an interest
first should prevail in equity.
illustration
For example, a man advertises a small boat for sale in the classified section of the newspaper.
The first person to see the ad offers him $20 less than the asking price, but the man accepts it.
That person says he or she will pick up the boat and pay for it on Saturday. Meanwhile another
person comes by, offers the man more money, and the man takes it. Who owns the boat? Contract
law and equity agree that the first buyer gets the boat, and the second buyer gets his or her money
back.6
Maxim no: 11
Equity imputes an intention to fulfil an obligation.
Meaning
Where a person has undertaken obligation his later conduct will, if possible, be interpreted as
fulfillment of that obligation.
Recognition
The trust Act section 92: Purchase by person contracting to buy property to be held on trust
where a person contracts to buy property to be held on trust for certain beneficiaries and buys the
property accordingly, he must hold the property for their benefit to the extent necessary to give
effect to the contract.
Maxim no: 12
Equity acts in personam. Introduction
In England, there was a distinction drawn between the jurisdiction of the law courts and that of
the chancery court. Courts of law had jurisdiction over property as well as persons and their
coercive power arose out of their ability to adjust ownership rights. Courts of equity had power
over persons. This distinction helped preserve a separation of powers between the two courts.
Meaning Decrees of equity were regarded not merely as decisions concerning the rights and
properties in dispute but as decrees, decisions and directions, addressed to the individual party or
parties.7
Ques--Equity under the legal system of Bangladesh
In Bangladesh, there was never any separate Court for the administration of Equity. The
greater part of the law to be applied by the Court has been codified. But in the absence of
specific law or usage in any matter, the Court has to act according to principles of ‘Equity’,
‘Justice’ and ‘Good Conscience’ interpreted to mean only those rules of English Equity which
are applicable to the society and circumstances of Bangladesh.
Statutory recognition of Equity
Statutory recognition of the principles of Equity is found in
the Specific Relief Act, 1882
the Trusts Act, 1882
the Contract Act, 1872
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 etc.
The Specific Relief Act
The provisions of the Specific Relief Act regarding injunction, specific performance,
cancellation, rectification and recession, etc. recognize the principles of Equity to a large
extent.
Injunction: Preventing a party from doing what he is under an obligation not to do. [Sec. 5 of the
SR Act]
Specific Performance: When the defendant performs the very thing to which he was under an
obligation.
Cancellation: Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable and who has
reasonable apprehension that such instrument may cause serious injury to him, if left outstanding,
may apply to the court to cancel the instrument. [Sec. 39]
Downloaded by Rajni Sharma (audit@vizinindia.com)
 20

Rectification: Instrument doesn’t express the real intention of parties due to fraud or mutual
mistake can be rectified under section 31 of the SR Act. [Equity looks to the intent rather than
form]
The Trusts Act
The rules contained in the Trusts Act, 1882 are substantially the same which were administered at
that time by English Courts of Equity under the name of ‘justice’, ‘equity’, and ‘good
conscience’.
The Contract Act
There are certain equitable doctrines which have been imported in the Contract Act, and some of
the important doctrines relating generally to the law of contract are the doctrines of penalties and
forfeitures, stipulation as to time in a contract, equitable relief on ground of misrepresentation,
fraud and undue influence. Section 64 and 65 of the Contract Act are nothing but the codified
form of the maxim, ‘He who seeks equity must to equity.’
Person whose consent has been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, coercion or undue influence
may cancel the contract. Such kind of contract is voidable at the option of the party not in default.
Section 64 of says: When a person at whose option a contract is voidable rescinds it, the other
party thereto need not perform any promise therein contained in which he is promisor. The party
rescinding a voidable contract shall, if he has received any benefit thereunder from another party
to such contract, restore such benefit, so far as may be, to the person from whom it was received.
Section 65 says: When an agreement is discovered to be void, or when a contact becomes void,
any person who has received any advantage under such agreement or contract is bound to restore
it, or to make compensation for it to the person from whom he received it.
The Transfer of Property Act
The Transfer of Property Act has also included many doctrines of Equity originated in the Court
of Chancery in England. Apart from such doctrines Sections 48 and 51 of the TP Act are based on
the principles of Equity. The English Equitable doctrine of part performance has also been drawn
in section 53A of this Act.
Section 48: Where a person purports to create by transfer at different times rights in or over the
same immoveable property, and such rights cannot all exist or be exercised to their full extent
together, each later created right shall, in the absence of a special contract or reservation binding
the earlier transferees, be subject to the rights previously created.
Section 51: If bonafide holders of immovable property under defective titles make some
improvements on the property, he must be compensated for the improvement before being evicted
by the person of better title.
Section 53A: A contract for sale of immovable property which fails to meet the requirement for
written signed contracts will raise an equitable title if it has been partly performed.
English Equity is not always followed
English rules of Equity are substantially adopted in enacting many statutes, but all the English
rules of Equity are not applicable in Bangladesh. For example:
While the English rule is that a Court of Equity will not compel specific performance of a
continuous duty extending over many years, section 21(g) of the Specific Relief Act puts a
definite time limit in this regard, viz., that contract requiring performance of a continuous duty
extending over more than 3 years will not be specifically enforced.
The conception of a trust in English law involves that of a double ownership, the trustee is said to
be legal owner while the beneficiary as the equitable owner. In Bangladesh there is no such thing
as equitable ownership and according to the law of Bangladesh there can be only one owner of a
property. When property is vested in a trustee there can be only one owner of a property and the
Bangladeshi beneficiary cannot be said to have an equitable ownership.
The distinction between legal and equitable rights and interests does not exist since the passing of
the Transfer of Property Act. Thus, the right of redemption of a mortgagor is not an equitable
right in Bangladesh, but a legal right conferred by a statute.
In Bangladesh there is no room for the application of the English doctrine that ‘a contract for
sale of real property makes the purchaser the owner in equity of the estate.’ Section 54 of the
Transfer of Property Act. Act expressly enacts that a contract for the sale of immovable
Downloaded by Rajni Sharma (audit@vizinindia.com)
 21

property does not by itself create any interest in or charge on the property.
It’s worth noting that:
The principles of justice, equity and good conscience are not binding upon the Courts of
Bangladesh but are provided to cover the points not covered by the statute or general law.
The English equity does not apply to the adjudication of Bangladesh:
where it is of local character and not suitable to the society and circumstance of Bangladesh.
where it lacks certainty,
where it is not universally acceptable on account of poor merit.
Though the Courts of Bangladesh have power to discover new principles of equity they should
not do so if English Equity on the point is clear and satisfactory, nor can an express statutory law
be overridden by the principles of equity.
Conclusion
Equity and the common law represented opposing values in the English legal system. The
common law was the creation of a judiciary independent from the Crown. Common-law courts
believed in the strict interpretation of statutes and precedential cases. Whereas the common law
provided results based on years of judicial wisdom, equity produced results based on the
whim of the king’s chancellor. Common-law judges considered equity Arbitrary and a
royal encroachment on the power of an independent judiciary. Renowned seventeenth-century
judge John Selden called equity “a roguish thing” and noted that results in equity cases might
well depend on the size of a chancellor’s foot.
Thus we have seen that enacting many statutes, the Bangladeshi legislature has substantially
adopted the English rules of equity but it must also be noted that all the rules of English Equity
are not applicable in Bangladesh. For example, while the English rule is that a court of equity will
not compel specific performance of a continuous duty extending over many years, section 21 of
the Specific Relief Act puts a definite time limit in this respect, that contract requiring
performance of a continuous duty extending over more than 3 years will not be specifically
enforced. Actually Bangladeshi legal system follows those rules of the English equity system
which consistent with the behavior of our people, usage of our people and humanity of our people.

Downloaded by Rajni Sharma (audit@vizinindia.com)