CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENT
Describe the grounds when court may order for cancellation of instrument? Whether an instrument may partially be cancelled?
Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, deals with the provisions of cancellation of an instrument. According to this section, if any instrument is void or voidable and the party against whom this instrument is void or voidable has reasonable apprehension that if the instrument left outstanding, then it will cause grave injury to him, then in such a situation, such party can file a suit and claim cancellation of such instrument.
According to section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, it is discretion of the court whether to cancel the instrument or not. If the court thinks that the instrument if not cancel will cause irreparable loss to the person, then in such a situation, the court will cancel the instrument otherwise the court will reject the suit.
Moreover, according to this section, not only parties to an instrument can claim cancellation of an instrument but also any person who is interested in an instrument can claim cancellation of such instrument. Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is based upon the principle of protective justice or preventive justice also known in English law as “Quia- timit” i.e., fear of injury in future.
According to this section, if a person has fear that injury may be caused to him in future, then also he can claim the cancellation of an instrument because of which injury may be caused to him in future.
In the leading case of Sanjay Kaushik vs. D.C. Kaushik, the Hon’ble court held that section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, protects the person from any injury which may be caused to him in future and the person who has fear that an instrument if left outstanding may cause irreparable loss to him in future can claim cancellation of that instrument.
Moreover, in the leading case of M. Pillai vs. K. Pillai, the Hon’ble court held that by exercising section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a person in fear can remove the clouds of imminent danger which may cause irreparable loss in future.
According to section 32 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, if an instrument is evidence of different rights and obligations, then in such a case, part of an instrument can be cancelled by the court.
In the leading case of Ram Chander vs Ganga Saran, the Hon’ble court held that section 32 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is applicable only if an instrument is evidence of separate and distinct rights and obligations. If it is so, then only court can cancel part of it and allow the residue to stand.
