Question

As per the Specific Relief Act,1963, identify the situation wherein any person interested in a contract may sue to have it rescinded, and such rescission may be adjudged by the court

• A. Where the contract is voidable or terminable by the plaintiff;
• B. Where the contract is unlawful for causes not apparent on its face and the defendant is more to blame than the plaintiff.
• C. Both (a) and (b)
• D. None of the above

Hint:

For the Specific Relief Act, clearly understand the conditions for each remedy: Specific Performance (Sections 10-14), Rescission (Section 27), Rectification (Section 26), Cancellation (Section 31), and Injunctions. Knowing the grounds for each is key.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks for the grounds on which a court can grant the remedy of rescission of a contract under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Rescission is the unwinding of a contract, restoring the parties to the position they were in before the contract was made.
Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
The relevant provision is Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, titled "When rescission may be adjudged or refused."
Section 27(1) lists the grounds:
"Any person interested in a contract may sue to have it rescinded, and such rescission may be adjudged by the court in any of the following cases, namely:—
(a) where the contract is voidable or terminable by the plaintiff;
(b) where the contract is unlawful for causes not apparent on its face and the defendant is more to blame than the plaintiff."
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Both options provided in the question are direct quotes from the clauses of Section 27(1).
- Option (A) refers to situations like contracts entered into due to coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence (which are voidable), or contracts that are terminable by their own terms.
- Option (B) refers to illegal contracts where the illegality is not obvious, and the defendant is the guiltier party, allowing the less guilty plaintiff to seek rescission.
Since both are valid and distinct grounds listed in the Act, the correct choice is the one that includes both.
Step 4: Final Answer:
The correct answer is Both (a) and (b).

Answer 2

The question asks under what circumstances a court may adjudge rescission of a contract under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Let's examine the two specific situations offered and see whether either, both, or neither is recognised under the Act.

1. Where the contract is voidable or terminable by the plaintiff: this is specifically listed as a ground on which rescission may be adjudged, for instance, contracts induced by fraud, coercion, undue influence, or misrepresentation are voidable, and a party to a terminable contract can likewise seek rescission.
2. Where the contract is unlawful for causes not apparent on its face and the defendant is more to blame than the plaintiff: this is separately and explicitly listed as another ground for rescission, covering contracts that are illegal for reasons not obvious on their face, where the party seeking rescission is less at fault than the other party.
3. Both (a) and (b): since the Act lists these two grounds side by side within the same provision on rescission, both situations are independently valid bases for rescission, neither excludes the other.
4. None of the above: this cannot be correct since both individual scenarios are explicitly recognised grounds under the Act, so it isn't the case that neither applies.

Because the Act lists both situations as separate, valid grounds rather than treating them as mutually exclusive.

Therefore, the correct answer is Both (a) and (b).