A sutra is a pithy statement, being unambiguous,
substantial, universal and logically sound-so say the pundits or (Sutravid).
"
• Sarvadvidhatomukham.
Astobhamanavadhan Ch
Maxims are short, pithy formulations of broad and general
principles of common sense and justice.
"These are not to be taken as positive laws of equity
which will be applied literally and relentlessly in their full width, but
rather as trends or principles which can be discerned in many of the detailed
rules which equity has established."
1. EQUITY WILL NOT SUFFER A WRONG TO BE WITHOUT A REMEDY
(a) 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 on which the
structure of equity rests. Thus it is responsible for the entire equitable
jurisdiction of the court of Chancery to prevent failure of justice. But the
meaning of the maxim should not be understood to embrace every moral wrong. The
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. The
maxim therefore must be taken as referring to rights which are suitable for
judicial enforcement but which were not enforced at common law owing to some
technical defect. The following cases can best illustrate the maxim.
(b) 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 vindicate and bl maintain it, and a remedy, if he is injured in the
exercise of and enjoyment of it. It is, indeed, a vain thing to imagine a right
without a remedy, for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal". It
was argued that the candidate for whom the plaintiff wanted to vote was elected
and that there was no precedent for such an action; and if it was allowed, that
would lead to multiplicity of proceedings but the same were rejected and Lord
Holt observed that "if man will multiply 1 injuries, actions must be
multiplied too, for every man that is injured ought to have his
recompense". Equity
As noted by Snell, it was on this maxim that the court of
Chancery based its interference to enforce uses and trusts. Where A conveyed
land to B for the use trans of and in trust for C, and B claimed to keep the
benefit of the land to himself, C had no remedy at law. But this was an abuse
of confidence, which was a wrong capable of redress in a Chancery Court.
In cases where some document was with the defendant and it
was necessary to for the plaintiff to obtain its discovery or production, a
recourse to the Chancery the t Courts had to be made for the Common Law courts
had no such power: is c consequently the wrongs at Common Law becoming
"wrongs without remedies". This situation was remedied by equity
courts. This jurisdiction was extended to appointment of a receiver by way of
equitable execution, and to action for ejectment too, excepting discovery in
case of penalties and forfeitures, cove for equity is against these two. The
Judicature Acts have now made the discovery automatic. Similarly a mortgager
was allowed in equity .to sue the mortgagee for land and for the rent thereof
even though the latter was possessed of the legal estate. A trustee for the
breach of a trust could be sued in equity because it was a wrong and no wrong
should go unredressed. Where a defamatory matter is published or where a
document is not produced or where there is a breach of right regarding water,
light or air, there also the equity courts ordered either for arrest or granted
an injunction as was suitable.
(c) Limitations of the maxim: Equity courts
supplemented the Common Law courts wherever they afforded no remedy at all or
afforded incomplete remedy or had insufficient procedure to collect evidence.
But to this there were certain limitations that:-(a) the equity courts could
not help where there was breach of a moral right only. Thus(only the breaches
of legal rights and equitable rights were capable of being redressed;)
(b) the equity courts
afforded no relief where the right and its remedy both were within the
jurisdiction of the Common Law courts;
(c) the equity courts afforded no relief, 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.
(d) Recognition in India: The Indian Trusts Act,
Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code and the Specific Relief Act in India have
incorporated the above principles. The Civil Procedure Code 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, rectification of instruments, injunctions and declaratory suits.
It can be said that the writ provisions in the Constitution,
the Administrative Law and the Public Interest Litigation devices have now
extended the scope and effective working of this maxim.