Court system before and after judicature act:
Before judicature act:
Court
|
..............|................
Civil. Criminal
|
|
1.King bench..... |
2.Common pleas|
3.Court of exchequer
Court system after judicature act:
Civil
|
Country court...... Supreme court judicature
|
1. Queen bench
2.The chancery division
3.The probate divorce and admiralty division
Monday, November 19, 2018
Friday, November 16, 2018
Aristotle Philosophy In PDF
Political philosophy
aristotle https://drive.google.com/file/d/17hzPXNqqo3kdTul76B7Cj7oQCrjSD_oL/view?usp=drivesdk
aristotle https://drive.google.com/file/d/17hzPXNqqo3kdTul76B7Cj7oQCrjSD_oL/view?usp=drivesdk
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Alternative Dispute Resolution Notes Full In pdf
Download Alternative dispute resolutionhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_R4DjAFrNZam_64bjbyY71tPFP3QG-8/view?usp=drivesdk
Alternative Dispute Resolution Notes in Full PDF Form
Copy Right Reserve
Sunday, October 28, 2018
Where There Are Equal Equities , The Law Shall Prevail
Where There Are Equal Equities , The Law Shall Prevail
Introduction
According to this maxim where two persons have equitable interests in the same subject matter for example if each is equally entitled to the protection of a court of equity , and one of them in addition to his equity , also obtains the legal estate in the same subject matter then the latter will be preferred . In such a case , equity will refuse to interfere at all , and would thereby leave the parties to litigate in a court of law where , of course , the legal estate alone will be recognized .
Equity provide no specific remedies where the parties are equal , or wher neither has been wronged
in other words A person in possession of the legal estate is entitled to priority over any person having merely an equitable estate in that property
When two parties wants the same things and the court cannot in good conscience say that
one has a batter right to the item then the other , the court of equity will refuse to decide and will leave the matter to the common law court .
A company that had been collecting to sale tax and turning it over to the state govt found that it had over taxed and over paid by two percent , it applied for refund but the state refused . The court of equity refused to decide the matter and to leave the law court , the court upheld the state on the ground that the money really belong to the customer of the company , since the company had no batter title to the money then the state , the court left the money with the state .
Concluding Remarks
To Conclude i would say that a person in possession of the legal entitled priority over any person having merely an equitable estate in that property
Introduction
According to this maxim where two persons have equitable interests in the same subject matter for example if each is equally entitled to the protection of a court of equity , and one of them in addition to his equity , also obtains the legal estate in the same subject matter then the latter will be preferred . In such a case , equity will refuse to interfere at all , and would thereby leave the parties to litigate in a court of law where , of course , the legal estate alone will be recognized .
Meaning Of The Meaning
Equity provide no specific remedies where the parties are equal , or wher neither has been wronged
in other words A person in possession of the legal estate is entitled to priority over any person having merely an equitable estate in that property
Explanation
When two parties wants the same things and the court cannot in good conscience say that
one has a batter right to the item then the other , the court of equity will refuse to decide and will leave the matter to the common law court .
Example
A company that had been collecting to sale tax and turning it over to the state govt found that it had over taxed and over paid by two percent , it applied for refund but the state refused . The court of equity refused to decide the matter and to leave the law court , the court upheld the state on the ground that the money really belong to the customer of the company , since the company had no batter title to the money then the state , the court left the money with the state .
Concluding Remarks
To Conclude i would say that a person in possession of the legal entitled priority over any person having merely an equitable estate in that property
Saturday, October 27, 2018
Where Equities Are Equal The First In Time Shall Prevail
Where Equity Are Equal The First In Time Shall Prevail
More about the principle Where equities are equal the first in time prevail
It is also known as Qui prior Est tempore, potior Estjure
Introduction
According to the maxim when there is no legal estate in the field and the question is as among the equitable estates only, the rule is that the person whose equity attached to the property first be entitled to priority over the other.
Meaning of the Maxim
Where there are two or more competing equitable interest , when two equities are equal the original interest such as the first in time will succeed. when there are two parties each have right to possess something then the one who acquired an interest first should prevail in equity .
For Example
A person advertises a Pet for sale in the classified section of New York Times the first person to see the ads offers him 500 Dollar less then the asking price But the person who is going to sell accept the cross offer , but the buyer asked , that he will take and pay the amount on Sunday , Meanwhile another buyer comes with offers more hen the previous and takes the pet himself , who owns the pet . contract law and the court equity agrees that the first buyer gets the pet and the second buyers gets his money back , Because Come first take first is the principal of equity
Application Of the Maxim
section 48 of transfer of property act 1882 is based on this maxim .
For Example
A mortgages property first to B , and then to C, B's , interests having been created first in the point of time, B , will have priority over C, . The rule applies only where equities are equal
Mortgage Executed By a Receiver
Where a mortgage is executed by Receiver under an order of court and by that order the court directs that such mortgage priority over any other mortgage of the earlier.
Concluding Remarks
In conclusion I would like to conclude that where two parties have the equal right to possess something then the one who acquired an interest first should prevail in equity.
More about the principle Where equities are equal the first in time prevail
Introduction
According to the maxim when there is no legal estate in the field and the question is as among the equitable estates only, the rule is that the person whose equity attached to the property first be entitled to priority over the other.
Meaning of the Maxim
Where there are two or more competing equitable interest , when two equities are equal the original interest such as the first in time will succeed. when there are two parties each have right to possess something then the one who acquired an interest first should prevail in equity .
For Example
A person advertises a Pet for sale in the classified section of New York Times the first person to see the ads offers him 500 Dollar less then the asking price But the person who is going to sell accept the cross offer , but the buyer asked , that he will take and pay the amount on Sunday , Meanwhile another buyer comes with offers more hen the previous and takes the pet himself , who owns the pet . contract law and the court equity agrees that the first buyer gets the pet and the second buyers gets his money back , Because Come first take first is the principal of equity
Application Of the Maxim
section 48 of transfer of property act 1882 is based on this maxim .
For Example
A mortgages property first to B , and then to C, B's , interests having been created first in the point of time, B , will have priority over C, . The rule applies only where equities are equal
Mortgage Executed By a Receiver
Where a mortgage is executed by Receiver under an order of court and by that order the court directs that such mortgage priority over any other mortgage of the earlier.
Concluding Remarks
In conclusion I would like to conclude that where two parties have the equal right to possess something then the one who acquired an interest first should prevail in equity.
Friday, October 26, 2018
Equity Follows The Law Explain
Equity Follows The Law
Introduction To The Maxim
Equity is a law which is introduced to provide justice or appropriate remedy , if , apply any conservative law would cause injustice Or When Common law have no remedy for any wrong , the main Purpose of law and equity is to provide justice the ultimate object of both are to provide justice. Equity law is not against common law or any procedure of common law it follows all the procedure and rule of common law it only come into action when there is some important circumstances disregarded by the common law rules that equity interferes.
Meaning Of The Maxim
Equity is not body of rules which is acting contrary to law but it is supplementary to the common law.
In other words both have same object that is justice , when there is difference opinion between common law and equity court then common law will prevail because equity is applied for adequate remedy .
The well known jurist Maitland has of the View
We are not supposed to think of common law and equity as of two rival systems. Equity had come not to destroy the law , but to fulfill it, Every tittle of law was to be obeyed , but when all this had been get something might be needful , something that might be needful something that equity would require
Equity is Supplementary To Common Law
Equity is supplementary to law , it is understood in the following aspects
Equity adopts and follows each and every rule of common law , in all cases where applicable
Equity follow the analogies of law
Application And Cases Related To The Maxim
Stickland Vs Aldrige
At common law where a person intestate leaving sons and daughters ,under the common law the eldest sons was entitled to the whole of the land to the exclusion of his younger brothers and sisters. This was undoubtedly unfair to the younger sons an daughters , While equity following the law granted them no relief , but this case is was held that if the son had induced his father not to make will by agreeing to divide the estate with his brothers and sister after he had inherited it , the estate was decided in favour of the eldest son , who refused to make the conveyance , in that situation equity would have interfered and compelled him to carry out his promise , because it would have been against conscience to allow the son to 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 VS Aldridge case
Thus it could be concluded that equity does follow the law but does not allow an unfair use to be made of legal rights.
Limitation Act Section 18 is Based Upon This Principal
Which Provided that if a person has not been able to exercise his right to file a suit within the period o limitation and his failure was due to the fact that the other person had fraudulently kept him an ignorance of his right then in that case limitation would commence from the date of his knowledge.
Registration Act Section 50 Is Based On this Principal
It provides that a registered deed will have priority over an unregistered deed relating to the same property. But equity makes an exception that in case of a subsequently registered instrument if the person in whose favour the subsequent registered instrument was made had notice of the previous unregistered instrument he will not have any priority
Concluding Remarks
To Conclude we would say equity is not come to destroy the law but it has come to assist the law to achieve its basic object of giving justice .
Equity Follows The Law For Video Lecture
Introduction To The Maxim
Equity is a law which is introduced to provide justice or appropriate remedy , if , apply any conservative law would cause injustice Or When Common law have no remedy for any wrong , the main Purpose of law and equity is to provide justice the ultimate object of both are to provide justice. Equity law is not against common law or any procedure of common law it follows all the procedure and rule of common law it only come into action when there is some important circumstances disregarded by the common law rules that equity interferes.
Meaning Of The Maxim
Equity is not body of rules which is acting contrary to law but it is supplementary to the common law.
In other words both have same object that is justice , when there is difference opinion between common law and equity court then common law will prevail because equity is applied for adequate remedy .
The well known jurist Maitland has of the View
We are not supposed to think of common law and equity as of two rival systems. Equity had come not to destroy the law , but to fulfill it, Every tittle of law was to be obeyed , but when all this had been get something might be needful , something that might be needful something that equity would require
Equity is Supplementary To Common Law
Equity is supplementary to law , it is understood in the following aspects
Equity adopts and follows each and every rule of common law , in all cases where applicable
Equity follow the analogies of law
Application And Cases Related To The Maxim
Stickland Vs Aldrige
At common law where a person intestate leaving sons and daughters ,under the common law the eldest sons was entitled to the whole of the land to the exclusion of his younger brothers and sisters. This was undoubtedly unfair to the younger sons an daughters , While equity following the law granted them no relief , but this case is was held that if the son had induced his father not to make will by agreeing to divide the estate with his brothers and sister after he had inherited it , the estate was decided in favour of the eldest son , who refused to make the conveyance , in that situation equity would have interfered and compelled him to carry out his promise , because it would have been against conscience to allow the son to 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 VS Aldridge case
Thus it could be concluded that equity does follow the law but does not allow an unfair use to be made of legal rights.
Limitation Act Section 18 is Based Upon This Principal
Which Provided that if a person has not been able to exercise his right to file a suit within the period o limitation and his failure was due to the fact that the other person had fraudulently kept him an ignorance of his right then in that case limitation would commence from the date of his knowledge.
Registration Act Section 50 Is Based On this Principal
It provides that a registered deed will have priority over an unregistered deed relating to the same property. But equity makes an exception that in case of a subsequently registered instrument if the person in whose favour the subsequent registered instrument was made had notice of the previous unregistered instrument he will not have any priority
Concluding Remarks
To Conclude we would say equity is not come to destroy the law but it has come to assist the law to achieve its basic object of giving justice .
Equity Follows The Law For Video Lecture
Thursday, October 25, 2018
Section 20 and 21 of Transfer Of Property act 1882
When an Interest is created for the benefit Of an Unborn Person
He Will Acquire vested interest On His Birth
Even Though the Possession is not Transfer to him immediately on his birth according to the deed of transfer
Or the deed imposed a condition that the unborn child would get interest on the age of majority
What is Contingent interest
When an interest is created in favour of a person with
a condition which is uncertain or the interest will be transfer on the happening or not happening of an uncertain event is called contingent interest.
Salient Features Of Contingent Interest
Contingent Interest is not vested but vest on happening of event in Future
The event is Uncertain
to acquire such interest is depend on the future accident if such accident is not happened no right will be created
when the Transferee died before the happening of the event the transfer will fail
Exceptions , When a condition is made that the interest will be transfer to the person upon attaining particular age is not contingent
Distinction Between Vested And Contingent Interest
The Title of owner is perfect while in contingent interest it is not perfect and become perfect only on happening of uncertain event.
The interest is absolutely In vested interest while the contingent interest is conditional .
On the date of transfer it become effective while contingent interest only become effective on happening of uncertain event .
The vested interest is inheritable while contingent is defeated on the death of the person if the uncertain event is not happened
The vested interest can be transfer absolutely while the contingent is transfer only with the uncertain condition
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
What are the common and distinct Features Of 1956 and 1962 Constitution of Pakistan Introduction The Constitution of Pakistan 1956 was the... -
Section 3 Of Transfer Of Property act 1882 Interpretation Clause Introductory Remarks In Every Act there are Some Clauses which Are ... -
Where Equity Are Equal The First In Time Shall Prevail More about the principle Where equities are equal the first in time prevail ...