prior equity, acquires the legal estate as trustee for the subsequent purchaser who must have had no notice of the prior equity. See Stanhope v. Earl Verney (1761) 2 Eden 81. This qualification may be justified on two grounds – (i) The beneficiaries and trustees of a trust are one; (ii) Where the equities are equal, the law prevails. In Taylor v. London and County Banking Co. (1901) 2 Ch. 231 at 262-263, Stirling L.J. said 'Now, a purchaser for value without notice is entitled to the benefit of a legal title, not merely where he had actually got it in, but where he has a better title or right to call 'for it. This rule was laid down in Wilkes v. Bodington (1707) 2 Vern. 599. It has accordingly been held that if a purchaser for value takes an equitable title only, or omits to get in an outstanding legal estate, and a subsequent purchaser for value without notice procures, at the time of his purchase, the person in whom the legal title is vested to declare himself a trustee for him., or even to join as a party in a conveyance of the equitable interest (although he may not formally convey or dec- lare a trust of the legal estate), still the subsequent purchaser gains priority.' The above proposition was approved in Assaf v. Fuwa (supra). In that case, the Judicial Com- mittee of the Privy Council stated that before the claim of a better right to call in the legal es- tate' can displace the operation of the principle 'qui prior est tempore portior est jure' the clai- mant must show that the owner of the legal estate either (i) had declared an express trust of the legal estate in his favour or (ii) had joined in the conveyance to him of the legal estate, or (iii) had lodged the title deeds with him. If there is no such positive act by the owner of the