UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES
SUBJECT : LAW OF EQUITY, TRUST & SPECIFIC
RELIEF ACT (LLT-462)
By-Ms. Manpreet Kaur (E13358)
Assistant Professor, UILS, CU
DISCOVER . LEARN . EMPOWER
LAW OF EQUITY, LIMITATION & SPECIFIC
RELIEF ACT (21LCT-265)
Course Outcome
CO Title
Number
CO1 The students will better appreciate the
concept of equity, justice and good con-
science
Will be covered in this
lecture
LAW OF EQUITY, LIMITATION & SPECIFIC RELIEF
ACT (21LCT-265)
TOPIC: EQUITABLE RIGHTS
AND INTERESTS: THEIR
NATURE AND
CLASSIFICATION
3
EQUITABLE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS: THEIR
NATURE AND CLASSIFICATION
• Equitable rights are in two categories. They include those rights created by
Equity and those recognized under Equity which were hitherto unrecognized
under Common law.
• The recognition and protection of certain rights by Equity were as a result of
the defects in Common law. These defects included the position that a person
who agreed on a lease without completing all the formalities took no interest
in the property as well as the non-recognition of the rights of a beneficiary to a
Trust.
• Equity stepped in here to recognize and protect “imperfect” interests other
than those which strictly comply with the law. The extent of its protection of
these rights will become apparent under the discussion on priority of interests.
4
• It created other interests hitherto nonexistent at Common law such as the
Mortgagor’s (borrower) equity of redemption and his equitable right to
redeem. These rights created here have no Common law equivalents.
• In fact, the rule at Common law in respect of the mortgagor was that his
interest lapsed if he doesn’t make payment on the date agreed. Equity
stepped in and gave the mortgagor a much stronger right to redeem and also
allows him transfer his interest in the property, called the equity of
redemption.
• One important feature of equitable rights/interests is that they are generally
below the strict legal standards set at Common law. They may not necessarily
stand up to legal formalities but in some cases, may be stronger than the
legal interest.
• Although, equitable interests are generally viewed as minor compared to
legal interests such that legal interests would usually take priority. As stated
earlier, this would not always be the case.
5
• Rights In Personam Or In Rem?
• Equitable rights are considered as being rights in personam
(enforceable against the conscience of an individual) while legal rights
are considered as being rights in rem (enforceable against the whole
world).
• This perception leads to the conclusion that legal rights are much
stronger than equitable rights since they bind the res of the dispute
while equitable rights, being in personam, can only bind the
conscience of the party.
• Thus, in an action for delivery up of goods, a court of common law
can simply order that the goods be delivered up and enforce this
order by forcibly taking it and delivering it up. Whereas, a court of
Equity can only order that the party in default deliver up the goods.
6
• If he doesn’t, the court can only imprison him until he is ready to comply.
Hence the maxim “Equity acts in personam”. Also, equitable interests are
not deemed to be as impregnable as legal interests because they devolve
from the legal estate and as such are only binding on the owner of the legal
estate.
• However, it can be questioned whether Equity actually acts in personam
only and not in rem. If one steps back from the logical substance of the
equitable rights and focuses on its procedures for enforcement and
consequences, it becomes apparent that the rights eventually act on the res
itself rather than on just the conscience of the party.
• Equitable instruments like the writs of Assistance and Sequestration which
enabled the court to order that the injured party be put in possession or
that the property be sequestered until compliance by the defaulting party
evidently act on the res.
7
• A foreclosure order is also an instance of Equity acting against the res.
• The rights of a beneficiary to a Trust also take on the toga of a right in
rem as it is enforceable against the whole world especially when it
comes to tracing trust property.
• It would only fail against a bonafide purchaser for value without
notice. Courts of Equity can also make orders in respect of land in a
foreign jurisdiction, as long as the party can be properly served within
the court’s jurisdiction.
8
THANK YOU
