aequitas agit in personam
Courts of equity in England did not claim to decide title to land directly; they ordered the defendant personally to do or not do something, and enforced obedience through contempt. Because the order binds the person, an equitable court could act even about property outside its territory, as long as the defendant was within its jurisdiction.
The maxim explains why decrees of specific performance and injunctions are personal orders, and why Indian courts can grant an injunction against a person within jurisdiction about foreign property or proceedings (an anti-suit injunction). It also explains the nature of a trust: the trustee is bound in conscience to the beneficiary.
Example
Since the defendant lived in Bengaluru, the court could restrain him from selling his Goa flat, because aequitas agit in personam.
In Indian law
- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (specific performance and injunctions as personal orders)