Discuss the maxim covering the following issues-

He who seeks equity must do equity; Explanation,

Application, Limitation & Recognition.

Meaning of the maxim:

The maxim “He who seeks equity must do equity” explains that the law of equity
requires everyone who comes to get relief to be willing to concede, recognize and
admit equitable right of defendant. While deciding any case the court of equity
grants equitable right to both of the parties against each other.

Purpose of the maxim:

By putting this maxim the very purpose of law is to guide the court of equity in a
right way; it demands the remedy seeker to act conscientiously as he expects other
to act in an equitable way.

Prerequisite of the application of the maxim:

This maxim is applicable if the equity sought by the defendant or granted to the
defendant is with respect to the subject matter of the suit or grow out of the
controversy pending before the court.
Application of the maxim:

This maxim is applicable on following doctrines;

Doctrine of Election:

According to this doctrine “He who accepts a benefit under an instrument must
adopt the whole of it, conforming to all of its provisions and renouncing every
right inconsistent with it.”

Illustration: Where a donor gives his own property to “E” and in the same
instrument purports to give “E’s” property to “B”. “E” cannot claim his part of the
gifted property if he is not willing to give his own property to “B” as mentioned in
the same instrument.

Doctrine of Consolidation of mortgages:

If a person becomes entitled to two mortgages against the same person; he may
consolidate these mortgages and refuse to permit the exercise of the equitable right
to redeem one mortgage without the other.

Doctrine of notice:

According to this doctrine if a mortgagor wishes to exercise his right to redeem his
mortgaged property he must give a reasonable notice of his intention to the
mortgagor.

Principle of set-off:

Where the mutual debt is due from the litigating parties against each other; the
amount so due shall set off that much due from other party and only the residuary
amount shall be claimed.
Equitable estoppels:

Where any person by his act of intention or negligence make to believe another
person of what is not true to be true cannot afterwards take plea of innocence if
that other person take some legal step under that misrepresentation.

Restitution:

Under law of contract if the contract is rescindable at the option of one party and it
rescinded the same; it shall have to restore all benefits it took out of such contract.

Recognition

Statutory recognitions of this principle of equity are found in:

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. Under Sec 35 of the Transfer of Property Act embodies the principle of
election. Meaning thereby that a man shall not be allowed to approbate and
reprobate.

iii. Under Sec 51 and 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 51 of the
Transfer of Property Act is based on this maxim and enjoins that he who
seeks equity must do equity. It explains the position of a person with a
defective title who makes improvements on the land in his possession
believing that is absolutely entitled to it. But when the rightful owner who
has a better title, evicts such a person from the property, he will have to pay
for the improvements as on the date of eviction on the principle that he did
not stop the person in possession from making improvements. Thus the
owner is estopped by his conduct.

iv. Under Order 8, Rule 6 of the CPC, the doctrine of Set-off is recognized.
Limitation on the maxim:

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.

Conclusion:

The maxim indicates the spirit of court of equity to take care the equitable rights of
all of the litigating parties; it doesn’t allow any the party to claim its equitable right
while usurping others. This maxim draws a line between common law and law of
equity. Here those cases are dealt by applying this maxim for which only damages
could be claimed in common law.