Good faith is to be preserved.
Explanation & Origin
Origin – Fides servanda est is latin phrase which literally translate to that good faith is to be preserved. And in today’s time we need to see that good faith in the law needs to be kept.
Explanation – Good faith is to be preserved term means that in the law, the good faith needs to be seen. And in this age and time there is need for the legal issued to see the good faith in which the act was done by a person.
If the a beggar robs a piece of bread for this family then his intention was in done in good faith, so that he could feed the family.
In the case of Sailajananda Pandey And Anr. vs Lakhichand Sao And Ors it was observed that the general rule constructive possession of a wider area will only be inferred from actual possession of the limited area, if the inference of such wider possession is necessary in order to give effect to contractual obligations or to preserve the good faith & honesty of a bargain.” And “Mr. Upjohn is right when he says the decisions have proceeded upon two lines, the one being those cases where the possession of the part has been treated as possession of the whole, because the Ct. has found, either by contract or according to conscience, that possession of the whole is what the person possessed on the part was intended to have, & the other being those cases in which the Gt. finding; no just reason for inferring, in favour o£ a person relying solely on possession of a part, a constructive possession of the whole, has refused to make such inference.
In the case of Mt. Munni Bibi And Anr. vs Triloki Nath And Ors it was observed by the their Lordships of the Privy Council are reported to have said:Now it seems to their Lordships to be common justice that when a proprietor in good faith, pending litigation makes the necessary payments for the preservation of the estate in dispute, and the estate is afterwards adjudged to his opponent, he should be recouped what he has so paid by the person who ultimately benefits by the payments, if he has failed through no fault of his own, to reimburse himself out of the rents.
In the case of Mapsa Tapes Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India  it was observed that Intrusion into privacy may be by – (1) legislative provisions, (2) administrative/exeautite opderq, ald (1) judicial orders. The legislative intrusions must be tested on the touchstone of reasonableness as guaranteed by the Constitution and for that purpose the court can go into the proportionality of the intrusion vis-a-vis the purpose sought to be achieved. (2) So far as administrative or executive action is concerned, it has again to be reasonable having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. (3) As to judicial warrants, the court must have sufficient reason to believe that the search or seizure is warranted and it must keep in mind the extent of search or seizure necessary for the protection of the particular State interest. In addition, as stated earlier, common law recognized rare exceptions such as where warrant less searches could be conducted but these must be in good faith, intended to preserve evidence or intended to prevent sudden danger to person or property.
Edited by Vigneshwar Ramasubramania
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
 AIR 1951 Pat 502
 AIR 1932 All 332
 2006 (201) ELT 7 P H