I've updated the HTML to create a more practical, exam-focused study tool. It now features clear section buttons for easy navigation, and the content is formatted for readability with all cases from the PDF included. ```html Equity & Trusts – Complete Exam Notes

⚖️ Equity & Trusts

Complete Exam Notes · LL.B. Arif Ahmed · NDUB
Maxims 4–8 Trusts Act 1882 ILAC + Bangla All cases included
4 Clean hands
He who comes to equity must come with clean hands
🇧🇩 Bangla
যে ব্যক্তি ইক্যুইটি আদালতে প্রতিকার চাইতে আসে, তার নিজের আচরণ অবশ্যই পরিষ্কার ও সৎ হতে হবে। তবে এটি শুধুমাত্র সংশ্লিষ্ট বিষয়ের ক্ষেত্রে প্রযোজ্য — সামগ্রিক জীবনযাত্রার ক্ষেত্রে নয়।
Definition: Anyone seeking equitable relief must not have engaged in unethical conduct directly connected to the matter at hand. Equity does not demand blameless lives in general.
🔍 Simple Example
A and B contract. A deceives B. Later A cannot enforce that contract in equity — his hands are unclean.
Key cases
Overton v. Banister (1844)
Infant misrepresented age to trustees, later sued to compel payment.
Held: She could not enforce — hands unclean.
Everest v. Williams (Highway Man's Case)
One highwayman sued another for account of robbery gains.
Held: case struck out; no relief.
Limitations
  • Public policy may override
  • Only conduct related to the specific right matters
Bangladeshi law
Specific Relief Act 1877
Ss. 17,18,20,22 — unfair conduct disentitles specific performance
Trusts Act 1882
S. 23 — breach of trust
Expected questions
Broad Discuss the maxim with application, limitations and cases.
Short note Clean hands maxim with one case.
5 Delay defeats equity
Equity aids the vigilant, not the indolent
🇧🇩 Bangla
যে ব্যক্তি তার অধিকার লঙ্ঘিত হওয়ার পরেও দীর্ঘ সময় কোনো পদক্ষেপ নেয় না, ইক্যুইটি তাকে সাহায্য করবে না। এটিকে laches বলে।
Definition: Unreasonable delay in enforcing a right is laches. If one sleeps on rights, they slip away.
📖 Laches
Unreasonable delay in enforcing a legal right. Equitable defence — differs from statutory limitation.
Key case
Chatrabhuj v. Mansukhram (Bombay 1925)
Plaintiff allowed land to be occupied for years, delayed beyond limitation.
Held: claim denied due to laches.
  • Delay NOT defeat equity where concealed fraud, secret trust, disability
  • Where limitation applies, laches may be excluded
Limitation Act 1908
Art.113 — specific performance within 1 year
Specific Relief Act 1877
S.56(h)(j) — injunction refused on acquiescence or conduct
6 Equality is equity
Proportionate equity, not arithmetic equality
🇧🇩 Bangla
ইক্যুইটি সবাইকে সমান সুযোগ দেয়। তবে সমতা মানে গাণিতিক সমান ভাগ নয় — বরং আনুপাতিক সমতা (proportionate equity)।
Definition: Equity puts parties on equal footing — proportionate equity, no undue advantage.
⚖️ Street v. Dixon (1881) — Fry J.
"Equality does not mean equality in its simplest form, rather proportionate equity."
Lake v. Croddock (1732)
Five bought land as joint tenants, contributed proportionately. Absent owner claimed survivorship.
Held: tenants in common — proportionate share.
  • Equity dislikes joint tenancy — presumption of tenancy-in-common
  • Contribution between co-trustees, co-sureties
  • Marshalling of assets
Contract Act 1872
S.42 (tenancy-in-common), Ss.43,69,70,146
TP Act 1882
S.45 (joint funds), S.56 (marshalling), S.82 (contribution)
7 Intent rather than form
Equity looks to spirit, not letter
🇧🇩 Bangla
সাধারণ আইন কঠোর — চুক্তির হুবহু ভাষা দেখে। কিন্তু ইক্যুইটি দেখে প্রকৃত উদ্দেশ্য ও ইচ্ছা।
Definition: Common law looks at letter; equity looks at intention and substance, gives flexibility for substantive justice.
📌 Common Law vs Equity
Common law: literal, rigid. Equity: purpose-based, substance over form.
Parkin v. Thorold (1852)
Lord Romilly MR: "If insisting on form defeats substance, they shall not allow the form to be relied upon."
Contract Act 1872
S.55 (time essence), S.74 (reasonable compensation)
TP Act 1882
Ss.114 & 114A — relief against forfeiture
8 Done which ought to be done
Equity treats obligation as already performed
🇧🇩 Bangla
যদি কোনো ব্যক্তি অন্যের জন্য বাধ্যবাধকতা পালনের প্রতিশ্রুতি দেয়, ইক্যুইটি মনে করে সেই কাজটি ইতিমধ্যে সম্পন্ন হয়েছে।
Definition: When a party has undertaken an obligation, equity considers it performed — applied mostly in contract, land transfer without formalities.
🏠 Classic — Land Purchase
A leaves Tk. 50,000 to T to purchase land for B. T fails. B dies leaving immovable to X, movable to Y.
Answer: X gets the money — equity regards land as purchased (conversion).
Three doctrines
  • Doctrine of Conversion
  • Executory contract
  • Doctrine of part performance
Specific Relief Act 1877
Ss.14,15 — specific performance
TP Act 1882
S.53A — part performance

📘 Trusts — core

Trust (S.3, Trusts Act 1882): “Trust” is an obligation annexed to ownership of property, arising out of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner, for the benefit of another.
Key terms
  • Author/Settlor — reposes confidence
  • Trustee — accepts confidence
  • Beneficiary — for whose benefit
  • Trust property — subject-matter
  • Instrument of trust — declares trust
🇧🇩 সংক্ষেপ
ট্রাস্ট হলো একটি আইনি ব্যবস্থা যেখানে Trustee সম্পত্তি Beneficiary-এর জন্য ধারণ ও পরিচালনা করে। এটি ইক্যুইটির অন্যতম শ্রেষ্ঠ অবদান।
History
  • Modern trust evolved from English equity.
  • 13th century — Catholic fathers, 'Borough' community, three parties.
  • Trusts Act 1882 enacted in British India; continues in Bangladesh via Adaptation Order 1972.
Three certainties (Knight v Knight, 1840)
  • Certainty of intention/words
  • Certainty of subject-matter
  • Certainty of objects
📌 Section 6, Trusts Act
Trust established when author expresses with reasonable certainty: (a) intention, (b) purpose, (c) beneficiary, (d) trust property.
Narendra Lal Chy v. Bimal Nakti Chy [BLD (HCD) 40]
Trust may be created by will; absence of word 'trust' does not vitiate if intention is clear.
Consequence of lack of certainty
  • Lack of words/subject → property goes to beneficiary
  • Lack of object → goes to settlor or heirs
  • Charitable trust: uncertainty cured by cypress doctrine
Doctrine of Cypress — “as near as possible” (French: cypress comme possible)
  • Equitable doctrine for charitable trusts
  • Once a trust, it will not fail
  • Conditions: impossibility + general charitable intent + new purpose as close as possible
📘 Example
X creates trust for college; impossible, so school established instead — valid under cypress.
Unlawful purpose (S.4) — trust void if: forbidden by law, defeats law, fraudulent, injury to person/property, immoral/opposed to public policy.
Who may create (S.7): every person competent to contract, and with court permission, minor.
Subject (S.8): properly transferable.
Beneficiary (S.9): every person capable of holding property (minor, unborn child if born during settlor's lifetime).
Trustee (S.10): every person capable of holding property; if discretion involved, must be competent to contract. Minor cannot be trustee.
Classification
  • Private — for individual/class (no public welfare).
  • Public/charitable — for public/considerable section (Verge v. Somerville, 1924).
  • Express — clearly declared (Fitzgerald v. Steward).
  • Executory — something remains to be done (e.g., will).
  • Executed — fully declared, nothing left.
  • Implied — gathered from presumable intention.
  • Constructive — imposed by court.

🧾 ILAC — sample problems

Q1(i) “hoping he will continue it in the family”
Issue: Whether precatory words create a trust.
Law: Knight v Knight (three certainties); S.6 Trusts Act; Illustration (b) — “hoping he will continue it in the family” does NOT create a trust.
Application: “hoping” = precatory; “family” = uncertain object. No binding obligation.
Conclusion: No trust; property passes as absolute gift.
🇧🇩 শর্ট
“hoping” শব্দটি বাধ্যবাধকতা তৈরি করে না — ইচ্ছা প্রকাশ মাত্র। তাই ট্রাস্ট বৈধ নয়।
Q1(ii) “fullest confidence … for benefit of C, daughter”
Issue: Whether valid trust and type.
Law: S.6 Illus. (a) — creates trust. Three certainties satisfied.
Application: A = settlor, B = trustee, C = beneficiary. Express, private, executed trust.
Conclusion: Valid trust.
🇧🇩 শর্ট
বৈধ ট্রাস্ট। A = settlor, B = trustee, C = beneficiary। Express, private, executed trust।
Q1(iii) nurture female foundlings as prostitutes
Issue: Whether trust for immoral purpose is valid.
Law: S.4 — purpose unlawful if immoral, opposed to public policy, or involves injury.
Application: Training girls as prostitutes = immoral, against public policy, injury to persons. Void.
Conclusion: Trust void.
🇧🇩 শর্ট
অনৈতিক ও জননীতিবিরোধী — Section 4 অনুযায়ী বাতিল।
Q1(iv) smuggling business to support children
Issues: (1) unlawful purpose? (2) separable purposes?
Law: S.4 — smuggling forbidden by law. If two purposes (one lawful, one unlawful) cannot be separated, whole trust void.
Application: Children's support depends entirely on smuggling profits. Inseparable → whole trust void.
Conclusion: Trust void.
🇧🇩 শর্ট
চোরাচালান незаконный; lawful উদ্দেশ্য (সন্তান) আলাদা করা সম্ভব নয় — পুরো ট্রাস্ট বাতিল।
Q1(v) insolvent transfers to B for A life, then B
Issues: (1) fraud on creditors? (2) trustee as beneficiary?
Law: S.4(c) — fraudulent purpose unlawful. S.53 TP Act — fraudulent transfers voidable.
Application: A insolvent, transfers to protect assets from creditors while retaining life interest. Fraud on creditors. B as trustee and beneficiary is permissible in law but trust is fraudulent.
Conclusion: Trust void; property available to creditors.
🇧🇩 শর্ট
ঋণগ্রস্ত অবস্থায় সম্পত্তি ট্রাস্টে স্থানান্তর করে নিজের সুবিধা ভোগ করা — পাওনাদারদের সাথে প্রতারণা। ট্রাস্ট বাতিল।
Q2(a) B as trustee for minor C — duties, liabilities, rights
Issues: Duties, liabilities, rights under Trusts Act; minor beneficiary.
Law: Ss.11-22 (duties), Ss.23-30 (liabilities), Ss.31-45 (rights/powers). S.41 — power to apply property for minor's maintenance.
Application: B must execute trust, take possession, protect title, keep accounts, separate property, act gratuitously. Liable for breach. Rights: reimbursement, indemnity, apply to court, convey, maintain minor (S.41). Since C is minor, B must act with extra care.
Conclusion: B owes full fiduciary duties; can apply income for C's maintenance; cannot profit.
🇧🇩 শর্ট
B-এর কর্তব্য: ট্রাস্ট কার্যকর, সম্পত্তি রক্ষা, হিসাব রাখা। দায়: ট্রাস্ট ভঙ্গের জন্য। অধিকার: খরচ ফেরত, আদালতের মতামত, S.41 অনুযায়ী অপ্রাপ্তবয়স্ক C-এর ভরণপোষণ।
Q2(b) college impossible → school established (cypress)
Issues: Whether trust fails when specific purpose impossible; cypress doctrine.
Law: Cypress — "as near as possible"; applies to charitable trusts when general charitable intent exists and specific purpose impossible. S.15 Trusts Act, S.26 TP Act.
Application: X had general charitable intent (education). College impossible; school is as near as possible. Cypress saves the trust.
Conclusion: Trust does not fail; property used for school.
🇧🇩 শর্ট
চ্যারিটেবল ট্রাস্ট — “once a trust, it will not fail”। কলেজ অসম্ভব, স্কুল স্থাপন করা হয়েছে — cypress doctrine অনুযায়ী বৈধ।
Equity & Trusts · Complete notes · Arif Ahmed · LL.B.
```