Most Important 101 Legal Maxims

 What are legal maxims

The established Latin phrases or principles that encapsulate core legal doctrines, guiding court decisions and legal interpretation. 

Legal Maxims serve as foundational rules in common law, providing consistency and fairness in legal reasoning rather than acting as strictly binding laws

Here is list of 100 legal maxims:

1. Ab Initio – From the beginning. 

2. Actio personalis moritur cum persona – A personal right of action dies with the person.

3. Actori incumbit onus probandi – The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. 

4. Actus me invito factus non est mens actus – An act done by me against my will is not my act.

5. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea – An act does not make one guilty unless it is accompanied by a guilty mind. 

6. Actus Dei Nemini Facit Injuriam: An act of God does injury to no one. 

7. Alibi – At another place.

 8. Amicus Curiae – A friend of court.

 9. Assentio mentium – The meeting of minds, i.e. mutual assents. 

 10. Audi alteram partem – let the other party be heard 

 11. Bona fide – In good faith.

 12. Caveat actor – Let the doer beware. 

 13. Caveat emptor – Let the buyer beware.

 14. Caveat venditor -Let the seller beware.

 15. Certiorari – A writ by which orders passed by an inferior court is quashed. 

 16. Consensus ad Idem - Agreement to the same thing. 

 17. Damnum sine injuria – Damages without injuries.

 18. Injuria sine damnum – Injury without damage. 

 19. De facto – In fact 

       De jure – By law

20. Delegatus non potest delegare - A delegate cannot delegate. 

21. De minimis – About minimal things.

22. De Minimis Non Curat Lex – The law does not govern trifles 

(unimportant things).

23. De novo – To make something anew, from the beginning.

24. Dictum – Statement of law made by the judge in the course of the decision but not necessary to the decision itself. 

25. Obiter Dicta - Things said in passing judgment.

26. Ratio Decidendi - The reason for the decision.

27. Doli capax – Capable of forming necessary intent to commit a crime.

28. Doli incapax - Inapable of forming necessary intent to commit a crime.

29. Detinue – Tort of wrongfully holding goods that belong to someone else. 

30. Estoppel – Prevented from denying.

31. Ex gratia – As favour.

32. Ex officio – Because of an office held.

33. Ex parte – Proceedings in the absence of the other party. 

34. Ex post facto – Out of the aftermath, or after the fact.

35. Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus – It means false in one thing, false in everything.

36. Factum probandum – The facts that need to be proved.

37. Factum probans – Relevant fact. 

38. Furiosi nulla voluntas est – “a madman has no will" or "a person of unsound mind has no free will".

39. Habeas corpus - A writ to have the body of a person to be brought in before the judge.

40. Ignorantia facti excusat, Ignorantia juris non-excusat – Ignorance of fact is an excuse, but ignorance of the law is no excuse.

41. Ipso facto – By the mere fact.

42. In lieu of – Instead of, in place of.

43. In personam – A proceeding in which relief is sought against a specific person. 

44. In rem - A proceeding or other legal action directed towards a property.

45. In status quo – In the present state.

46. Inter alia – Among other things. 

47. Inter vivos – Between living people (especially of a gift as opposed to a legacy). 

48. Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium – It means it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to litigation.

49. Jus in personam – Right against a specific person (or party).

50. Jus in rem – Right against the world at large. 

51. Justitia nemini neganda est – Justice is to be denied to nobody. 

52. Lex Non Cogit Ad Impossibilia –The law does not compel the impossible.

53. Lex non a rege est violanda – The law must not be violated even by the king.

54. Locus Standi - The right to bring an action or to be heard in a court. 

55. Mala fide – In bad faith.

56. Malum in se or Mala in se (plural) – Wrong or evil in itself, or crime that is considered wrong in and of itself.’ 

57. Malum prohibitum – In a way, opposite of Malum in se. It means ‘crimes are criminal not because they are inherently bad, but because the act is prohibited by the law of the state.

58. Mandamus  – ‘We command’.

59. Modus operandi – Way of working, or mode of operation.

60. Mutatis Mutandis – With the necessary changes having been made, with the respective differences having been considered.

61. Nemo bis punitur pro eodem delicto – Nobody can be twice punished for the same offence.

62. Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa – It means no man shall be punished twice for the same offence. 

63. Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa or Nemo judex in causa sua or Nemo judex in sua causa – Nobody can be the judge in his own case.

64. Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire – A man will not meet his maker (God) with a lie in his mouth, or, ‘no man at the point of death is presumed to lie.’ 

65. Novation – Transaction in which a new contract is agreed by all parties to replace an existing contract.

66. Nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege -  There must be no punishment without law.

67. Particeps criminis – A participator in the actual crime/partner in crime.

68. Per curiam (decision or opinion) – By the court. 

69. Per se – By itself.

70. Prima facie – At first sight.

71. Alimony - a legal obligation on a person to provide financial support to their spouse before or after marital separation or divorce. 

72. Per incuriam – Because of lack of care.

73. Qui facit per alium, facit per se – He who acts through another acts himself.

74. Qui peccat ebrius luat sobrius – He who does wrong when drunk must be punished when sober.

75. Quid pro quo – Something for something.

76. Qui sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus – It means he who receives advantage must also bear the burden.

77. Quo warranto – By what authority. 

78. Respondeat superior – Let the master answer. 

79. Res ipsa loquitor – The thing speaks for itself. 

80. Res Judicata – A matter already judged.

81. Res Judicata Pro Veritate Accipitur – It means that a judicial decision must be accepted as correct.

82. Salus populi est suprema lex or Suprema lex salus populi – The welfare of the people is the supreme law. 

83. Stare Decisis - To stand by things decided. 

84. Sine qua non – “Without which nothing”. 

85. Suo Motu – On its own motion.

86. Uberrima fides (sometimes uberrimae fidei) – Utmost good faith. 

87. Ubi jus ibi remedium – where there is a right, there is a remedy. 

88. Actus legis nemini facit injuriam - The act of the law does injury to no one.

89. Vis major – Act of God.

90. Volenti non fit injuria – Damage suffered by consent gives no cause of action.

91. Expressio Units Exclusi Alterius – Express mention of one is exclusion of another.

92. Contemporanea Expositio Est Optima et Fortissima in lege –

Contemporaneous exposition is best and strongest in law.

93. Noscitur a Sociis - A word is known by the company it keeps.

94. Ejusdem generis - Of the same kind or nature.

95. Ut Res Magis Valet Quam Pareat - It is better for a thing to have effect than to be made void.

96. Nemo dat quod non habet - no one can give what he does not have.

97. Qui prior est tempore potior est jure - he who is first in time is better in law.

98. Assignatus utitur jure auctoris - an assignee is clothed with the rights of the assignor.

99. Alienatio rei praefertur juri accrescendi - The law favors alienation to accumulation. 

100. Pendent lite nihil innovature - Nothing new should be introduced during the pendency of litigation.

101. Waiver – Voluntarily giving up or removing the conditions.

Read more ...

What is injunction in Court language

Injunctions – Meaning & Types

📌 *Meaning of Injunction*

• An injunction is a judicial order that restrains a party from doing a specific act or compels them to perform a specific act.

• A court order requiring a person or entity to perform or, more commonly, refrain from a specific action, used when monetary damages are inadequate. It serves as a preventive, equitable remedy to stop legal wrongs, such as harassment, property damage, or unlawful business practices, often preserving the status quo until a final trial.

• It is governed by Sections 36 to 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the procedural aspects are in the CPC, 1908, particularly Order XXXIX Rules 1–5.

📌 *Important Principles for Granting Injunction (3 Essentials)*

◾ *1. Prima Facie Case* – The applicant must show a valid legal right at first glance.

◾ *2. Balance of Convenience* – More inconvenience will be caused if the injunction is not granted than if it is.

◾ *3. Irreparable Injury* – Damage cannot be adequately compensated in money.

📌 *Types of Injunctions*

*1. Temporary (Interim) Injunction*

◾ *Provision:* Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, CPC.

◾ *Meaning:* Granted for a limited period or until further orders, usually to preserve the status quo until the case is decided.

◾ *Purpose:* Prevent irreparable loss during the pendency of the suit.

◾ *Example:* If A is about to demolish a disputed boundary wall, B can seek a temporary injunction to stop demolition until the case is decided.

◾ *Case Law:* *Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, 1992 SC* – The Supreme Court held that a temporary injunction is granted when:

1. Prima facie case exists.

2. Balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant.

3. Irreparable injury will be caused without injunction.

📌 *2. Permanent (Perpetual) Injunction*

◾ *Provision:* Section 38, Specific Relief Act, 1963.

◾ *Meaning:* Granted by decree at the final hearing; it permanently restrains the defendant from doing a wrongful act.

◾ *Purpose:* To conclusively settle the rights of the parties.

◾ *Example:* Court orders a factory to permanently stop releasing harmful chemicals into a river.

◾ *Case Law:* *K.K. Dewan v. District Judge, Chandigarh, P&H HC* – Court granted a perpetual injunction restraining interference with property possession.

📌 *3. Mandatory Injunction*

◾ *Provision:* Section 39, Specific Relief Act, 1963.

◾ *Meaning:* Directs the defendant to do a particular act to prevent a breach of obligation.

◾ *Purpose:* Restores the situation to what it was before the wrongful act.

◾ *Example:* If a neighbour illegally constructs a wall blocking your entrance, the court may order them to demolish it.

◾ *Case Law:* *Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden, 1990 SC* – Mandatory injunction granted where urgent restoration of rights was necessary.

📌 *4. Prohibitory Injunction*

◾ *Meaning:* Restraining a person from doing a particular act.

◾ *Example:* Court restrains a publisher from releasing a defamatory book.

◾ *Case Law:* *American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. 1975 UKHL* – Though an English case, often cited for prohibitory injunction principles.

📌 *5. Ad-interim Injunction*

◾ *Meaning:* A short-term injunction given ex parte (without hearing the other side) to prevent immediate harm until the matter is heard.

◾ *Example:* If land is about to be sold within hours, the court can pass an ad-interim injunction to halt the sale.

◾ *Case Law:* *Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, 1994 SC* – Laid down principles for granting ad-interim relief without notice.

📌 *6. Preventive Injunction*

◾ *Meaning:* Prevents the breach of an obligation by prohibiting certain acts.

◾ *Example:* Court restrains a company from using a trademark similar to another brand.

📌 *7. Restorative Injunction*

◾ *Meaning:* Orders restoration of the status quo by undoing a wrongful act already done.

◾ *Example:* Directing a person to remove an encroachment already made.

Read more ...

HINDU LAW – LANDMARK JUDGMENTS

 📘 HINDU LAW – LANDMARK JUDGMENTS

🔴 CONDITIONS OF MARRIAGE (VOID & VOIDABLE)

◾ *Yamunabai v. Anantrao (1988)*

The Supreme Court held that in cases of bigamy, the second wife does not get the legal status of a wife because the second marriage is void in law.

◾ *Priya Bala v. Suresh Chandra (1971)*

The Supreme Court held that for proving a second marriage, it must be established that the marriage was performed with proper ceremonies, and mere admission of marriage is not sufficient.

◾ *Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995)*

The Supreme Court held that conversion to another religion does not automatically dissolve the first marriage, and a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage is void and punishable.

◾ *Bhaurao v. State of Maharashtra (1965)*

The Supreme Court held that a marriage is valid only when it is celebrated with proper ceremonies and in due form.

◾ *Seema v. Ashwani Kumar (2006)*

The Supreme Court directed that registration of marriages should be made compulsory for all religions to ensure legal proof and prevent disputes.

◾ *Rathnamma v. Sujathamma (2020)*

The Supreme Court held that mere registration of a marriage agreement is not sufficient to prove a valid marriage without proper ceremonies.

◾ *Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra (1965)*

The Supreme Court held that proper solemnization of marriage with essential ceremonies is necessary to constitute a valid marriage and to establish the offence of bigamy.

◾ *Lata Singh v. State of U.P (2006)*

The Supreme Court held that inter-caste marriages are valid under the Hindu Marriage Act, provided the essential conditions of the Act are fulfilled.

🔴 *RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS, JUDICIAL SEPARATION & DIVORCE*

◾ *Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar (1984)*

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and held that restitution of conjugal rights is an inherent part of marriage, subject to the defence of reasonable excuse.

◾ *Russel v. Russel (1897)* 

The court defined cruelty as conduct that causes danger to life, limb, or health, whether physical or mental, or creates a reasonable apprehension of such danger.

◾ *Dastane v. Dastane (1975)*

The Supreme Court held that cruelty includes conduct which creates a reasonable apprehension in the mind of one spouse that it is harmful or unsafe to live with the other spouse.

◾ *Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988)*

The Supreme Court held that demand for dowry amounts to cruelty under matrimonial law.

◾ *Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002)*

The Supreme Court held that a party seeking divorce on the ground of desertion must prove that they are not taking advantage of their own wrong.

◾ *Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017)*

The Supreme Court held that the six-month waiting period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is directory and can be waived by the court in appropriate cases.

◾ *Digvijay Singh v. Pratap Kumari (1970)*

The Supreme Court explained that impotency refers to a physical or mental condition that makes consummation of marriage practically impossible.

◾ *R. Lakshmi Narayan v. Santhi (2001)*

The Supreme Court held that for declaring a person unfit for marriage due to mental disorder, it must be proved that the disorder is severe enough to prevent a normal married life.

◾ *Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi (2010)*

The Supreme Court held that cruelty must be assessed based on the overall facts and circumstances, and even silence or lack of mutual respect may amount to cruelty.

◾ *Bipin Chandra v. Prabhavati (1957)*

The Supreme Court held that desertion requires both the fact of separation and the intention to desert for the statutory period.

◾ *Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel (2010)*

The Supreme Court held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage can be a ground for divorce only when exercised under Article 142 by the Supreme Court.

◾ *Hitachand Srinivas Mangalore v. Sunanda (2001)*

The Supreme Court held that a party is not entitled to divorce merely by proving grounds if they are themselves guilty of misconduct or immoral behaviour.

◾ *Manisha Tyagi v. Deepak Kumar (2010)*

The Supreme Court held that cruelty includes conduct that causes mental agony and makes it impossible for spouses to live together.

◾ *Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar (2011)*

The Supreme Court held that divorce by mutual consent can be granted only if statutory conditions are fulfilled, including the second motion and satisfaction of the court.

🔴 *MAINTENANCE*

◾ *Rajnesh v. Neha (2020)*

The Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines regarding maintenance, including disclosure of assets, adjustment of overlapping claims, time-bound disposal, and factors for determining maintenance such as income, status, needs, and standard of living.

◾ *Abhilasha v. Prakash (2020)*

The Supreme Court held that an unmarried Hindu daughter is entitled to claim maintenance from her father under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, if she is unable to maintain herself.

◾ *Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017)*

The Supreme Court held that courts should exercise discretion carefully while granting interim maintenance and must consider the income of both parties.

🔴 *ADOPTION*

◾ *Basavarajappa v. Gurubasamma (2005)*

The Supreme Court held that upon adoption, the child becomes a member of the adoptive family with the same rights as a natural-born child and becomes a coparcener.

◾ *Gurudas v. Rasaranjan (2006)*

The Supreme Court held that performance of Datta Homam is not mandatory for a valid adoption, and the actual giving and taking ceremony is sufficient.

🔴 *GUARDIANSHIP*

Gita Hariharan v. RBI (1999)

The Supreme Court held that the term “after” in Section 6(a) means “in the absence of,” allowing the mother to act as a natural guardian during the father’s absence.

Mohini v. Veerendra Kumar (1977) 

The Supreme Court held that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody matters.

30. Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42

The Supreme Court reiterated that the welfare of the child overrides the statutory rights of parents in custody disputes.

🔴 *JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY & COPARCENARY*

◾ *Radhama v. Muddu Krishna (2019)*

The Supreme Court held that a Hindu’s undivided interest in joint family property can be disposed of by will under Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act.

◾ *Dodamaniyappa v. Muniswamy (2019)*

The court held that property inherited by sons from their father becomes joint family property.

◾ *Rukhmabai v. Laxminarayan (1960)*

The Supreme Court held that a Hindu family is presumed to be joint unless proven otherwise.

◾ *Sitabai v. Ram Chandra (1970)*

The Supreme Court held that a joint family does not dissolve merely due to the death of the sole coparcener if there is a possibility of adding new members.

◾ *Krishna Prasad v. CIT (1975)*

The Supreme Court held that a joint Hindu family must consist of at least two members to be recognized.

◾ *Makhan Singh v. Kulwant Singh (2007)*

The Supreme Court held that the existence of a joint family does not automatically mean that the property is joint; the burden of proof lies on the person claiming it.

◾ *Arunachalam v. Muruganatha (1953)*

The Supreme Court held that self-acquired property of a father can be transferred without the consent of sons and does not automatically become ancestral property.

◾ *Rani v. Santa (1971)*

The Supreme Court held that legal necessity for alienation of joint family property must be genuine and not merely asserted.

◾ *Balmukund v. Kamla Wati (1964)*

The Supreme Court held that alienation of joint family property without legal necessity can be challenged by other coparceners.

◾ *Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020)*

The Supreme Court held that daughters acquire the status of coparceners by birth, irrespective of whether the father was alive at the time of the 2005 amendment, and they have the same rights and liabilities as sons.

◾ *Bhagwat Sharan v. Purushottam (2020)*

The Supreme Court held that the burden of proving the existence of a Hindu Undivided Family lies on the person who asserts it, and such a person must also prove that the property in question belongs to the joint family unless it is shown that it is derived from the nucleus of the joint family.

◾ *Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur (2020)*

The Supreme Court held that a Karta can alienate coparcenary property only for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate, and the burden of proving such necessity lies on the alienee; if the alienee fails to discharge this burden, the sale can be set aside.

Read more ...