"He who comes into equity must come with clean hands.

"
This maxim bars relief for anyone guilty of improper conduct in the matter at hand. It operates to prevent any affirmative recovery for the person with "unclean hands," no matter how unfairly the person's adversary has treated him or her. The maxim is the basis of the clean hands doctrine. Its purpose is to protect the integrity of the court. It does not disapprove only of illegal acts but will deny relief for bad conduct that, as a matter of public policy, ought to be discouraged. A court will ask whether the bad conduct was intentional. This rule is not meant to punish carelessness or a mistake. It is possible that the wrongful conduct is not an act but a failure to act. For example, someone who hires an agent to represent him or her and then sits silently while the agent misleads another party in negotiations is as much responsible for the false statements as if he himself or she herself had made them. The bad conduct that is condemned by the clean hands doctrine must be a part of the transaction that is the subject of the lawsuit. It is not necessary that it actually have hurt the other party. For example, equity will not relieve a plaintiff who was also trying to evade taxes or defraud creditors with a business deal, even if that person was cheated by the other party in the transaction. Equity will always decline relief in cases in which both parties have schemed to circumvent the law. In one very old case, a robber filed a bill in equity to force his partner to account for a sum of money. When the real nature of the claim was discovered, the bill was dismissed with costs, and the lawyers were held in Contempt of court for bringing such an action. This famous case has come to be called The Highwayman (Everet v. Williams, Ex. 1725, 9 L.Q. Rev. 197), and judges have been saying ever since that they will not sit to take an account between two robbers.

It is often stated that one who comes into equity must come with clean hands (or alternatively, equity will not permit a party to profit by his own wrong). In other words, if you ask for help about the actions of someone else but have acted wrongly, then you do not have clean hands and you may not receive the help you seek. For example, if you desire your tenant to vacate, you must have not violated the tenant's rights. However, the requirement of clean hands does not mean that a "bad person" cannot obtain the aid of equity. "Equity does not demand that its suitors shall have led blameless lives." Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216, 229 (1934), (Brandeis, J.). The defense of unclean hands only applies if there is a nexus between the applicant's wrongful act and the rights he wishes to enforce.

Maxims of Equity
Maxims of Equity

1. EQUITY WILL NOT SUFFER A WRONG TO BE WITHOUT A REMEDY

Meaning Where there is a right there is a remedy. This idea is expressed in the Latin Maxim ubi jus ibi remedium. It means that no wrong should go unredressed if it is capable of being remedied by courts. This maxim indicates the width of the scope and the basis of on which the structure of equity rests. This maxim imports that where the common law confers a right, it gives also a remedy or right of action for interference with or infringement of that right.

Application and cases In Ashby v. White, wherein a qualified voter was not allowed to vote and who therefore sued the 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. In cases where some document was with the defendant and it was necessary for the plaintiff to obtain its discovery or production, a recourse to the Chancery Courts had to be made for the Common Law becoming wrongs without remedies.

Limitation a) If there is a breach of a moral right only. b) If the right and remedy both were in within the jurisdiction of the Common Law Courts. c) Where due to his own negligence a party either destroyed or allowed to be destroyed, the evidence in his own favour or waived his right to an equitable remedy.

Recognition i) The Trust Act ii) Section 9 of CPC- entitles a civil court to entertain all kinds of suits unless they are prohibited.

iii) The Specific Relief Act- provides for equitable remedies like specific performance of contracts, injunction, declaratory suits.

2. EQUITY FOLLOWS THE LAW

Meaning The maxim indicates the discipline which the Chancery Courts observed while administering justice according to conscience. As has been observed by Jekyll. M.R: The discretion of the court is governed by the rules of law and equity, which are not to oppose, but each, in turn, to be subservient to the other. 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.

Application and cases At common law, where a person died intestate who owned an estate in fee-simple, leaving sons and daughters, the eldest son was entitled to the whole of the land to the exclusion of his younger brothers and sisters. This was unfair, yet no relief was granted by Equity Courts. But in this case it was held that if the son had induced his father not to make a will by agreeing to divide the estate with his brothers and sisters, equity would have interfered and compelled him to carry out hi promise, because it would have been against conscience to allow the son to keep the benefit of a legal estate which he obtained by reason of his promise. This decision was held in Stickland v. Aldridge. Equity follows the law and even if by analogy law can be followed, it should be followed.

Limitation i) Where a rule of law did not specifically and clearly apply ii) Where even by analogy the rule of law did not apply

Recognition

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. Such a decision was held in Indian Appa Narsappa Magdum case.

3. HE WHO SEEKS EQUITY MUST DO EQUITY

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 careful: Woe to those who stint the measure: Who when they take by measure from others, exact the full; But when they mete to them or weigh to them, minish Explanation This is one of the most important of the maxims in practical terms. It emphasises a feature of the equitable jurisdiction which differentiates it sharply from the common law, ie its flexible and discretionary approach to the granting of relief. At common law, a person who is entitled to damages, the most characteristic of common law remedies, cannot generally be made to accept them subject to conditions. But this is what equity does, sometimes as a matter of course, when granting relief. The most frequent example in practice is the imposition of terms on the granting of an injunction, most notably at the interlocutory stage where the court intervenes to preserve the status quo pending the trial of the action and where it is invariable to require the defendant to give a personal undertaking to pay any damages that may be sustained by the plaintiff Application and cases This maxim has application in the following doctrinesi) Illegal loans ii) Doctrine of Election iii) Consolidation of mortgages iv) Notice to redeem mortgage

v) Wifes equity to settlement vi) Equitable estoppel vii) Restitution of benefits on cancellation of transaction viii) Set-off

i)

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 a unregistered moneylender. 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.

ii)

Doctrine of election: Where a donor A gives his own property to B and in the same instrument purports to give Bs 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 can not retain his property and at the same time take the property of A.

iii) 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.

iv) Notice to redeem mortgage: Notice to a mortgagor to redeem ones mortgage is an equitable right of the mortgagor.

v)

Wifes equity to a settlement: There was a time when womans 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 Tortfeasors) Act, 1935, married women has full right on her property and it is not consolidated with her husbands property.

vi) 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.

vii) Restitution of benefits on cancellation of transaction: It is proper justice to return the benefits of a contract which was voidable, and, equity enforced this principles in cases where it granted relief of rescission of a contract. A party can not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong.

viii) 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 i) The demand for an equitable relief must arise from a suit that is pending. ii) This maxim is applicable to a party who seeks an equitable relief.

Recognition i) 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. ii) sec 35 of the Transfer of Property Act embodies the principle of election. iii) Sec 51 and 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. iv) In Order 8, Rule 6 of the CPC, the doctrine of Set-off is recognized.

4. HE WHO COMES INTO EQUITY MUST COME WITH CLEAN HANDS

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 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 i) If the transaction is a against public policy ii) if the party repents for his conduct before his unjust plans are carried out.

Recognition i) Section 23 of the Indian Trust Act- An infant can not setup a defence of the invalidity of the receipt given by him. ii) Section 17, 18 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 - Plaintiffs unfair conduct will disentitle him to an equitable relief of specific performance of the contract.

Distinction between maxim no. 3 and 4He who seeks equity must do equity He who comes into equity must come with clean hands

i) It is applicable when both the plaintiff and i) It is applicable when the defendant has no the defendant have claims of equitable separate claim to relief and the plaintiffs relief against each other. conduct is unfair.

ii) It exposes the condition subsequent to the ii) It is a condition precedent to seeking relief sought. equitable relief. iii) It refers to the plaintiffs conduct as the iii) It refers to the plaitiffs conduct before court thinks it ought to be, after he comes he approaches the court. to the court. iv) The plaintiff has to mold his behavior iv) If the plaintiffs conduct is unfair, it would according to the impositions by the court. not entitle him to the relief sought. v) The plaintiff has an option or a choice v) The conduct of the plaintiff snatched his before him either to submit to the choice from him. His equitable right conditions put by the court, or to get out therefore neither be recognized nor of the court. enforced. vi) This maxim looks to the future. vi) This maxim looks at the past.

5. DELAY DEFEATS EQUITIES

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 and cases To cases which are governed by statutes of limitation either expressly or by analogy the maxim will not apply. Such cases fall into three categoriesi) Those equitable claims to which the statute applies expressly. ii) to which the statute applies by analogy. iii) Equitable claims which are covered by ordinary rules of laches. Doctrine of laches- Plaintiffs unreasonable delay is a weapon of defence by the defendant against the plaintiff.

In a Bombay case, the plaintiff allowed his land to be occupied by the defendant and this was acquiesced by him even beyond the period of limitation. On a suit of the land it was decided that as the period of limitation to recover possession had expired, no relief could be granted. Also the case of Allcard v. Skinner is worth mentioning here.

Limitation This maxim does not apply wheni) where the law of limitation expressly applies ii) where it applies by analogy, and iii) where the law of limitation does not apply but the cases are governed by ordinary rules of laches.

Recognition The English doctrine of delay and laches showing negligence in seeking relief in a court of equity can not be imported into the law in view of Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which fixes a period of one year (previously three years) within which a suit for specific performance should be brought. Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act embodies this doctrine but with a difference.

6. EQUALITY IS EQUITY

Meaning Plato defined that If you cannot find any other, equality is the proper basis. This maxim is also explained as equity delighteth in equality, which means that as far as possible equity would put the litigating parties on an equal level so far as their rights and responsibilities are concerned. 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 and cases Application of this maxim can be understood from the following:

i) Equitys dislike for joint tenancy and presumption of tenancy-in-common ii) Equal distribution of joint funds and joint purchases iii) Contribution between co-trustees, co-sureties and co-contractors iv) Ratable distribution of legacies v) Marshalling of assets

7. EQUITY LOOKS TO THE INTENT RATHER THAN THE FORM

Meaning

Common law was very rigid and inflexible. It could not respond favourably 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 and cases 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 instancesi) Relief against penalties and forfeitures ii) Relief in regard to precatory trust iii) Relief in regard to mortgages, the doctrine of equity of redemption and the doctrine of clogs on redemptions iv) Attitude in regard to statute of frauds.

i) 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.

ii) Precatory trust- A trust is created with- (1) an intention on his part to create a trust thereby, (2) the purpose of the trust, (3) the beneficiary, and (4) 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.

iii) 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 mortgagors 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. iv) Attitude in regard to statute of frauds-

Recognition i) 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 theessence, the contract will not be voidable but entitles the promisee to damages. ii) Section 74 of the Contract Act- only a reasonable compensation can be claimed. iii) Sec 114-A of the Transfer of Property Act- Forfeiture clauses in a lease.

8. EQUITY LOOKS ON THAT AS DONE WHICH OUGHT TO BE 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.

Application and cases If A makes T trustee leaving 50,000 Taka 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 Taka? 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. The working of this maxim can be seeni) the doctrine of conversion ii) Executory contracts iii) doctrine of part performance

i) Doctrine of conversion- In the case of Lachmere v. Lady Lachmere, money was taken as land. Doctrine of conversion can convert the money into immovable property and immovable property into money. ii) Executory contracts(a) 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. As a leading case on this point, Holroyd v. Marshall can be cited. (b) Agreement for a transfer: In Walsh v. Lonsdale, it was decided that an agreement for lease could be treated as a lease in equity. iii) 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. Maddison v. Alderson is a leading case on this point.

Recognition Many of the doctrines of English equity have taken statutory form inBangladesh. Insofar as equitable assignments are concerned no equitable estate is recognized in Bangladesh. A transfer of future property for consideration operates as a contract to be performed in future. i) 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. ii) The Specific Relief Act- Section 12 relating to the specific performance of part of a contract also illustrates the application of the maxim.

iii) 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.

9. EQUITY IMPUTES AN INTENTION TO FULFILL AN OBLIGATION

Meaning Equity considered and estimated acts of parties. Thus where a person is under an obligation to do a certain act, and he does some other act which is capable of being regarded as an act in fulfillment of his obligation. In other words a person is presumed to do what he is bound to do. In Sowden v. Sowden, a husband covenanted with the trustee of his marriage settlement to pay to them 50,000 to be laid out by them in purchase of land in a particular area D. He, in fact, never paid the sum, but after marriage purchased the land at D in his own name, for 50,000. He died and could not bring the land into settlement. Equity courts construed that he purchased land to fulfill his obligation.

Application and cases i) Doctrine of performance and satisfaction ii) Ademption iii) Doctrine of presumption of advancement iv) Relief against defective execution of power of appointment.

i) Doctrine of performance and satisfaction- Sowden v. Sowdenand Lachmere v. Lady Lachmere cases are examples of performance. Satisfaction is the donation of a thing with it is to be taken in extinguishment of some prior claim of donee. This maxim is helpful where the presumed intention of the testator is to be found out; where the intention is express the maxim has no application. ii) 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. e.g. X by his will leaves his daughter Y one-third of his residuary estate. Thereafter on Ys marriage X gives Y 20,000 Taka. X dies. 20,000 Taka is an ademption -complete or proportionately to the gift of onethird share of the residuary estate of X.

iii) 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, but not to a man and his mistress. iv) 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. e.g. A holds 50,000 Taka upon trust to divide among a certain class of persons. A has no option is 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. A defective execution will always be aided in equity under the circumstances mentioned, it being the duty of every man to pay his debts, and a husband or a father to provide for child.

Recognition i) The Succession Act- Presumption against satisfaction is mentioned here. In Hasanali v. Popatal, a testator, who had a sum of Rs 9000 as deposit from his brother, gave to is brother a legacy of Rs 9000 and it was held that the brother was entitled to both, the legacy and his deposit. But as decided in Rajmanuar case where a will contained a clear indication that the legacy was meant as a satisfaction of the debt due to X, X could not claim both as the section explains. ii) 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. The doctrine of advancement does not apply in Bangladesh.

Maxim 1Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedyMeaning: Latin term Ubi jus ibi remedium. Where there is a right, there isremedyIt means that no wrong should go undressed if it is capable of being remedied bycourts. Where there is a wrong. There is a remedy. Where there is right there is aremedy. Aright without a remedy is a vex thing Recognition in Bangladesh: The Trust Act 1882, Section 9 of the Civil ProcedureCode & the Specific Relief Act in Bangladesh has incorporated the above principle.The Civil Procedure Code entitles a civil court to entertain all kinds of suitsunless they are prohibited. The Specific Relief Act provides for equitableremedies like specific performance of contracts, ratification of instruments,injunction & declaratory suits.Sec-9 and sec-151 of CPC CIVIL courts have jurisdictions to try all suits ofcivil nature unless there barred.Specific Relief Act:-1.Specific performance of contract2.Rectification of instruments3.Injunctions4.Declaratory suit Maxim 2Equity follows the lawMeaning: Latin term Acquits sequitur legem. The equity court observed common lawwhile administering justice according to conscience.Maitland says that,We ought not to think of common law & equity asof two rival systems. Equity has come not to destroy the law but to fulfill it, tosupplement it, to explain it.Every jot & every title of law was to be bayed, but when all this had been doneyet something might be needed, something that equity would require & that wasadded by equity. There goal was the same but due to historical reason they chosedifferent path.Equity respected every word of law & every right at law but where the law wasdefective, in those cases, equity provides equitable right & remedies.According to Snell,If some important point is disregarded by commonlaw court, then equity interferes.Thus, Equity follows the law but not always.Recognition in Bangladesh: Bangladesh has not recognized the distinction betweenequitable and legal interest. Equity rules therefore in Bangladesh can notoverride the specific provisions of law. As for example, every suit in Bangladeshhas to be brought within the limitation period and no judge can create canexception to this or can prolong the time limit. Similarly no court can conferrights, which can be acquired only by registration of a document, on a party,without getting the document registered. Maxim 3He who seeks equity must do equityMeaning: The maxim means that to obtain an equitable relief the plaintiff musthimself be prepared to do equity.The plaintiff must recognize & submit to the right of his adversary; you must do unto your neighbors what you wish him to do unto you

Recognition in Bangladesh: (1) The Contract Act, Under section 19-A of TheContract Act contracts entered into under undue influence are voidable and therefore a party to a contract who has the potion of getting the contract declared void will have to return the benefits so abstained to the party form whomhe abstained it under such contract. This is but proper, because one cannotbenefit twice. One cannot opt out the liabilities form such contract. (2) Under the Transfer of Property Act, Section 35 embodies the principle ofelection which rests on the principle of approbate & reprobate as is known inScotland, meaning thereby that a men shall not be allowed to approbate &reprobate.Section 51 of the Transfer of Property ActSection 30 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 Maxim 4He who comes into equity must come with clean hands Meaning: Equity, as it was based on good faith and conscience, demanded fairness, uprightness and good faith not only form the defended bit also form the plaintiff. It is therefore aptly said that, he that hath committed an inequity. This very idea is expressed in this maxim but in a different terminology. It is well known that ex turpi causa non oritur action, no cause of action forma base cause. As said in previous maxim, he who seeks equity must do equity that is, one must be prepared and willing to behave and to do what, according to the principle of morality, justice and reason, is fair and just. While applying this maxim the court believed that the behavior of the plaintiff was that not against conscience before he came to the court for its assistance Recognition in Bangladesh: (1) Section 23 of the Trust Act 1882(2) Section 17, 18 & 20 of the Specific Relief Act. Where the plaintiffs is guiltyof sharp practice, fraud & undue influence as detailed under Section 18 or wherethere is a contract to sell or let property by a plaintiff who has no title asspecified under Section 17, specific performance will not be granted to theplaintiff. The jurisdiction to specific performance under Section 20 isdiscretionary and the court id not bound to grant such a relief merely because itis lawful to do so. The courts discretion is not arbitrary but sound andreasonable, guided by judicial principle and capable of connection, by a court ofappeal. Maxim 5Delay defeats equitiesMeaning: Latin term Vigilanibus, non dormentibus, jura subvenient. It meansEquity aids the vigilant & not the indolent. It is an undisputed maxim that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty if one sleeps upon his right, his right will slip away from him. Where an injured party has been slow to demand a remedy for a wrong, which he has for a long time regarded with apparent indifference, the court will decline to give him that remedy. Recognition in Bangladesh: Article 113 of The Limitation Act 1908, which fixes period of three years within which a suit for specific performance should be brought. Section 51 of The Transfer of Act in Bangladesh embodies this doctrine. Section 56 of the Specific Relief Act, under this section, injunction cannot be granted

(1)The former arises out of a presumption of a contract while the latter (Section 51, Transfer of Property Act) rests on the maxim He who seeks equity must do equity). (2)The former principle is wider than the latter one. (3)Where the former is invoked there is no question of eviction at all and the estoppels party has not pay compensation while the latter does not prevent eviction but puts the evictor on equitable terms as regards compensation with an option to sell his interest to the person sought to be evicted. Maxim 6Equality is equityMeaning: Plato defines equality as a sort of justice. And further pointes outthat if you cannot find any other, equality is the proper basis. This maxim isexplained also as equity delighted in equality, which means that as far aspossible equity would put the litigating parties on an equal level so far as theirand responsibility are concerned. The maxim expresses the object of both law andequity in order to effectuate a distribution of property and losses, proportionateto several claims & liabilities of the parties concerned. Equity therefore meansproportionate equality.Justice Fry said,When I said quality, I dont mean necessarily equality in itsimplest form, but which has been something called proportionate equity.Recognition in Bangladesh: All these four doctrine resulting form the applicationof the maxim is equality is equity have been recognized in Bangladesh undervarious enactments:(1) The Contract Act, Section 42, illustrates tenancy in common as regardsdevolution of liabilities.(2)Section 43 illustrates that one of a number of promisors who has performedthe promise is entailed to compel the other promisors to contribute equally withhim.(3)Section 69 & 70 illustrate the doctrine of marshalling.(4)Transfer of Property Act, Section 56 illustrates the doctrine ofmarshalling.(5)The Trust Act, Section 27, there is contribution also as between co-trustee. Maxim 7Equity looks to the intent rather than the formMeaning: As is seen before, Common Law was very rigid and inflexible. It could notrespond favorably to the demands of time. In respect of acquisition and transferof property, it regarded the form of a transaction to be more important than itssubstance. Moreover it expected the contracting parties to rigidly observe theiragreements and to perform their stipulation to the very letter (litera acripta) ofevery promise or agreement.Recognition in Bangladesh: The principle contained in the maxim has beenrecognized under Bangladeshi Law in section 55 and 74, The Contract Act.Section, 114 and 114-A of The Transfer of Property Act.

Maxim 8Equity looks on that as done which ought to be doneMeaning: A between two persons, where one of them has incurred an obligation andundertaken upon himself to do something for the other, the equity courts look onit as done and as producing the same result as if the obligation or undertakinghad been actually performed. Equity treats a contract to do a thing as if thething were already done, though only in favors of volunteers. In other words, asto the consequences and incidents of the subject matter

of contract, it will betraded as if the final acts anticipated and contemplated by the parties have beencarried out in the same manner as they ought to have been and as they might havebeen carried out. Equity acts on the conscience of a person. What one hasundertaken to do, binding his conscience ought to be done and equity courtstherefore look to the acts of the person bound by his conscience and interpretthem in such a way that they amount to what ought to be done.Recognition in Bangladesh: The principle contained in the maxi m has beenrecognition in Bangladeshi law under following encasements:Section 12 of The Specific Relief Act relating to the specific performances ofpart of a contact also illustrates of the maxim.Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act illustrates the doctrine of part-performance as based on this maxim.Section 91 of The Truest Act 1882 dealing with property acquired with notice ofexisting contract is also illustrative of the application of this maxim .Maxim 9Equity imputes an intention to fulfill an obligationMeaning: Equity courts came into existence to do justice. They strongly believedthat a person must be prepared to do what is right and fair. An old saying goesone must be just before one professes to be generous.Equity considered acts of parties. Thus, where a person is under an obligationto do a certain act and he does some other act which is capable of being regardedas an act in fulfillment of his obligation, the latter will be so regarded,because it is right to put the most favorable construction on a mans acts and topresume that he be generous.Recognition in Bangladesh: In Bangladesh, the English rule of presumption relationto satisfaction and ad-emption has been discarded. If a testator wants to satisfyhis obligation by a subsequent gift, he must do so by express words. Section 177,178 and 179 of the Bangladesh Succession Act make a deliberate departure from theEnglish doctrine of satisfaction section 177 goes.Where a debtor bequeaths a legacy to his creditor and it does not appear from thewill that the legacy is meant as a satisfaction of the debt the creditor shall beentitled to the legacy as well as the debt.The reason for this departure is that presumption recognized in England wasobjectionable in them or specifically inapplicable to Bangladesh.Section 92 of the Bangladesh Trust Act puts into practices the principle of thismaxim. It explains that, where a person contract to buy property to be held ontrust for certain beneficiary and buys the property accordingly, he must hold theproperty for their benefit to the extent necessary to give effect to thecontract.Equity thus imputes an intention to fulfill an obligation.

Maxim 10Where there is equal equity, the law shall prevailMeaning: It means that where the claims of the two persons are equally equitable,he who owns the legal estate in addition will be preferred.The plain meaning of the maxim, thus, is that the person in possession of thelegal estate will get priority over any prior or subsequent equitable interests.Thus, when both the parties are equally entitled to obtain help from courts ofequity because their equities are equal, the party who has law in his favor willsucceed.Thus equitable interest is not as strong as legal interest and so, according tothe maxim, the law shall prevail.Recognition of Bangladesh: Doctrine of election, Marshalling and set-off are basedon this maxim. In Bangladesh, sec.35, 48 and 81 of the T.P. Act Order 8, Rule 6 ofthe CPC. Illustrate the maxim.As there is no distinction between legal and equitable interest in Bangladesh, noconflict exists between the two whatever exists in England. The general rule ofpriority, which is enacted in sec.48 of the T.P. Act, is that when successivetransfer of the same property has been affected, the first in time shall getpriority subject to the doctrine of notice.

Maxim 11Where the Equalities are equal, the first in time shall prevailMeaning: Priority means the right to enforce a claim in preference to others. Thequestion of priority arises when two or more persons have interest in the sameproperty.As expressed in Rice vs. Rice 1853, priority is the right of a party to satisfyits own claim of interest in comparison to others.This maxim lays down that as between persons having only equitable interests, iftheir equities are in all other respects equal, priority of time gives the betterequity.Recognition of Bangladesh: Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act (priority ofright created by transfer) incorporates this principle. Section 78 of the same Actexplains an exception to the maxim when a prior mortgage is postponed. Maxim 12Equality acts in personamMeaning: Equity court is a court of conscience. It operates in personam. Thus itbrings an individuals conscience under its way. Its decision is merely notconcerning the right and liabilities but it also address to the parties. Thus, onthe one hand, it bind the conscience of an individual, on the other hand, theChancellor exercised its jurisdiction according to its conscience. The maximdescribes the procedure of equity courts. It covers a large portion of procedural

and remedial a large portion of procedural and remedial action.Describing the extent of its application Hanbury in his modern Equity bookcommented that In a sense it comprise the whole law of equity. While JusticeMukharjea says,The rule of action in personam is really the weaponwith whish the early Chancellors sought to establish the jurisdiction inopposition to that of the Common Law Courts.Recognition in Bangladesh: Some learned text writers say that no such jurisdictionis applied here. Some other says that courts of Bangladesh have not much butlimited power of making a decree in personam. The Civil procedure code, Section 16does not deal with the problem. It simply explains the division of jurisdiction ofthe municipal courts only

Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights[edit]

Vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit. A person who has been wronged must act relatively swiftly to preserve their rights. Otherwise, they are guilty of laches, an untoward delay in litigation with the presumed intent of denying claims. This differs from a statute of limitations, in that a delay is particularized to individual situations, rather than a general prescribed legal amount of time. In addition, even where a limitation period has not yet run, laches may still occur. The equitable rule of laches and acquiescence was first introduced in Chief Young Dede v. African Association Ltd. (1910) 1 N.L.R 130 at 133.

Alternatives: Delay defeats equity Equity aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights

[3.33] Equity has traditionally been reluctant to come to the aid of claimants who are unduly slow in asserting their rights, an attitude enshrined in the tag, vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt, ie, the law assists the vigilant, not those who sleep. Smith v Clay (1767) 3 Bros Cl 639n at 640n. Hence delay, if it takes the form of what has come to be called laches , provides in certain circumstances a defence to equitable claims. But it would be dangerous to assume that even a lengthy period of inaction on the plaintiffs part, stretching over a number of years, will necessarily of itself lead to the dismissal of his claim. In this context, the operation of the Statute of Limitations 1957 is important. Claims at common law have been affected by limitation periods imposed by statutes for centuries. See Brady and Kerr, Limitation of Actions in the Republic

The principle in equity was that equity helped the vigilant and not the indolent. Therefore, irrespective of the Law of limitation , the plaintiff in a court of Equity had to be vigilant and has to act promptly. It will be seen later that these cardinal principles of equity in England guide a large extent, the grant of specific relief.

Delay defeats equity or Equity aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights or Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights Vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit. Once the party knows they have been wronged, they must act relatively swiftly to preserve their rights. Otherwise, they are guilty of Only the registered members can see the link. Register here. Laches is a defense to an action in equity. This maxim is often displaced by statutory limitations, but even where a limitation period has not yet run, equity may apply the doctrine of "laches," an equitable term used to describe delay sufficient to defeat an equitable claim. In Chief Young Dede v. African Association Ltd. the equitable rule of laches and acquiescence was introduced. Alternatives:

Delay defeats equity Equity aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights EQUITY DELAY DEFEATS EQUITY Where the appellant waited for 16 years before instituting the action and allowed an innocent third party to acquire substantial interest for value. Court Held that Delay defeats equity 1) Delay defeats equity.

If a plaintiff waits too long before claiming it might lead to unfairness to another party. Leaf v International Galleries (1950) The plaintiff was sold a painting, which both parties mistakenly believed was a Constable. However the painting was a fake but the court did not award the equitable remedy of rescission (return of the parties to pre-contractual position) because there had been a delay of 5 years between the contract and the discovery. Equity delights in equality Where two persons have an equal right, the property will be divided equally. Thus Equity will presume joint owners to be tenants in common unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise. Equity also favours partition, if requested, of jointly-held property. This maxim means that equity will not play favorites. For example, a receiver who has been appointed to collect the assets of a business in financial trouble must use the income to pay every creditor an equal share of what is owed to him or her. If a Only the registered members can see the link. Register here fund loses a large amount of money through poor investment, then everyone who is entitled to benefits must suffer a fair share of the loss. Three adult children of a woman who is killed in an auto accident should share equally in any money that is recovered in a Only the registered members can see the link. Registerhere action if the children are the woman's only surviving close relatives. A judge will depart from this principle only under compelling circumstances, but the rule applies only to parties who are on an equal footing. If, for example, the woman in an auto accident died leaving three young children, then the money that is recovered might be distributed in proportion to each child's age. A younger child will have lost his or her mother for more years than an older brother or sister. Also, a receiver would have to prefer a secured creditor over those creditors who had no enforceable interest in a particular asset of the company. Unless there is proof that one person in a group is in a special position, the law will assume that each should share equally in proportion to his or her contribution or loss. One who comes into equity must come with clean hands Sponsored Links

It is often stated that one who comes into equity must come with Only the registered members can see the link. Register here (or alternately, equity will not permit a party to profit by his own wrong). In other words, if you ask for help about the actions of someone else but have acted wrongly, then you do not have clean hands and you may not receive the help you seek. For example, if you desire your tenant to vacate, you must have not violated the tenant's rights. However, the requirement of clean hands does not mean that a "bad person" cannot obtain the aid of equity. "Equity does not demand that its suitors shall have led blameless lives." Only the registered members can see the link. Register here, 292 U.S. 215, 229 (1934) (Brandeis, J.). The defense of unclean hands only applies if there is a nexus between the applicant's wrongful act and the rights he wishes to enforce. For instance, in Only the registered members can see the link. Register here (1889) 115 N.Y. 506, a man who had killed his grandfather to receive his inheritance more quickly (and

for fear that his grandfather may change his will) lost all right(s) to the inheritance. In D&C Builders v. Rees (1966), a small building firm did some work on the house of a couple named Rees. The bill came to 732 pounds, of which the Rees had already paid 250 pounds. When the builders asked for the balance of 482 pounds, the Rees announced that the work was defective, and they were only prepared to pay 300 pounds. As the builders were in serious financial difficulties (as the Rees knew), they reluctantly accepted the 300 pounds 'in completion of the account'. The decision to accept the money would not normally be binding in contract law, and afterwards the builders sued the Rees for the outstanding amount. The Rees claimed that the court should apply the doctrine of Only the registered members can see the link. Register here, which can make promises binding when they would normally not be. However, Only the registered members can see the link. Register here refused to apply the doctrine, on the grounds that the Rees had taken unfair advantage of the builders' financial difficulties, and therefore had not come 'with clean hands'. 2) He who comes to equity must come with clean hands. In other words, an equitable remedy will not be granted to someone who has acted unfairly. D and C Builders v Rees (1965) A small building firm had done work for Mr and Mrs Rees. The bill was 732 of which Mr Rees had paid 250 in advance. When the builders asked for the rest, the Rees who knew the builders were in financial difficulty claimed the work had not been done properly and offered only 300. The builders reluctantly accepted but sued afterwards for the remaining 182. As common law payment of a debt is not considered as satisfying a debt and the builders claimed the extra, equity however, has a doctrine of equitable estoppel under which the courts can declare the plaintiff is prevented or estopped form claiming the rest. Lord Denning in the court of Appeal refused to apply this doctrine because the Rees had taken unfair advantage they had not come to the court with clean hands. "He who comes into equity must come with clean hands." This maxim bars relief for anyone guilty of improper conduct in the matter at hand. It operates to prevent any affirmative recovery for the person with "unclean hands," no matter how unfairly the person's adversary has treated him or her. The maxim is the basis of the clean hands doctrine. Its purpose is to protect the integrity of the court. It does not disapprove only of illegal acts but will deny relief for bad conduct that, as a matter of public policy, ought to be discouraged. A court will ask whether the bad conduct was intentional. This rule is not meant to punish carelessness or a mistake. It is possible that the wrongful conduct is not an act but a failure to act. For example, someone who hires an agent to represent him or her and then sits silently while the agent misleads another party in negotiations is as much responsible for the false statements as if he himself or she herself had made them. The bad conduct that is condemned by the clean hands doctrine must be a part of the transaction that is the subject of the lawsuit. It is not necessary that it actually have hurt the other party. For example, equity will not relieve a plaintiff who was also trying to evade

taxes or defraud creditors with a business deal, even if that person was cheated by the other party in the transaction. Equity will always decline relief in cases in which both parties have schemed to circumvent the law. In one very old case, a robber filed a bill in equity to force his partner to account for a sum of money. When the real nature of the claim was discovered, the bill was dismissed with costs, and the lawyers were held inOnly the registered members can see the link. Register here of court for bringing such an action. This famous case has come to be called The Highwayman (Everet v. Williams, Ex. 1725, 9 L.Q. Rev. 197), and judges have been saying ever since that they will not sit to take an account between two robbers. "Equity follows the law." Equity does not replace or violate the law, but it backs it up and supplements it. Equity follows appropriate rules of law, such as the rules of evidence and pretrial discovery. Equity will not allow a remedy that is contrary to law. The court of Chancery never claimed to override the courts of common law. In Story on Equity third English edition 1920 page 34,"where a rule, either of the common or the statute law is direct, and governs the case with all its circumstances, or the particular point, a court of equity is a much bound by it as a court of law, and can as little justify a departure from it." it is only when there is some important circumstance disregarded by the common law rules that equity interferes. As per Cardozo in Graf v. Hope Building Corporation, 254 N.Y 1 at 9 (1930), "Equity works as a supplement for law and does not supersede the prevailing law."

Delay defeats equity

Two matters must be noted here. First, the time in which an action for equitable relief may be sought may be governed by the Limitation Act 1980 and, second, even where there is no statutory limitation, it will be governed by the equitable principle of laches. The Limitation Act 1980 lays down limitation periods in connection with the enforcement of trust matters. For example, s 21(3) provides, as a general rule, that an action by a benefi ciary to recover trust property or in respect of any breach of trust shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date the right of action accrued. However, the section also provides, for example, that no time limit shall apply to an action by a benefi ciary in respect of fraud by a trustee or an action by a benefi ciary to recover trust property or its proceeds from a trustee. The other main types of equitable claims regulated by the Act are claims to the personal estate of deceased persons, claims to redeem mortgaged land and claims to foreclose mortgages of real or personal property. Equity may in very limited cases apply the same limitation to situations analogous to the express statutory ones. No statutory limitations apply to actions for breach of a fi duciary duty, or to setting aside for undue infl uence or to actions for rescission. In addition, the

Limitation Act 1980 s 36 provides that nothing in the Act shall affect any equitable jurisdiction to refuse relief on the grounds of acquiescence or otherwise. Time limits are considered further in Chapter 16 at page 462. Delay may be evidence of acquiescence, so the two issues cannot be separated. A failure to bring an action may tend to confi rm other slight evidence that the innocent party has accepted or agreed to the breach of contract or other ground for seeking relief, thus preventing him from enforcing his right to remedies for that breach. Whether the court will regard the claim as barred will be a matter to be determined on the facts. As with all equitable principles, fl exibility is important. As the Privy Council stated in Lindsay Petroleum v Hurd (1874) LR 5 PC 221: The doctrine of laches in the Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waived that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards For more on limitation see Chapter 16, p. 462. CHAPTER 2 THE MAXIMS OF EQUITY 52 to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, . . . the validity of the defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause the balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as it relates to the remedy.