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the Specific Relief Act,1963, identify the situation wherein any person interested in a contract may sue to have it rescinded, and such rescission may be adjudged by the court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

The Specific Relief Act lists out the grounds for rescission as a set of clauses, so the way to answer is simply to check whether both quoted scenarios appear among those clauses.

1. Where the contract is voidable or terminable by the plaintiff: this is one of the recognised grounds on its own.
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 another independently recognised ground.
3. Both (a) and (b): since both sit within the same provision as valid, separate grounds, both situations qualify together.
4. None of the above: ruled out, because both scenarios are explicitly listed as grounds in the Act.

The correct answer is Both (a) and (b).

Answer 2

A helpful way to check whether an option quoting statutory language is correct is to compare it word for word against the actual text of the relevant provision on rescission in the Specific Relief Act.

1. None of the above: for this to be correct, both quoted scenarios would need to be absent from the Act's actual grounds for rescission, which is not the case.
2. Where the contract is voidable or terminable by the plaintiff: this phrase is copied essentially verbatim from the Act's list of grounds, confirming it as a genuine, standalone ground.
3. Where the contract is unlawful for causes not apparent on its face and the defendant is more to blame than the plaintiff: this phrase similarly matches the Act's wording almost word for word, confirming it too as a genuine, standalone ground.
4. Both (a) and (b): since both quoted phrases are drawn directly and accurately from the same provision, and it presents them as alternative, independently sufficient grounds rather than requiring a choice between them, the correct reading includes both together.

Comparing the quoted language to the statute confirms that rescission may be sought under either scenario, so the answer is Both (a) and (b).