When cancellation may be ordered
Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with when cancellation may be ordered. Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; The Act came into force on 01 Mar 1964.
(1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.
(2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation.
Section 31, The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Act 47 of 1963).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Prem Singh v. Birbal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-8.pdf 2006-05-02 DATE VERIFIED. CA 2412/2006. Sinha/Balasubramanyan. Art 59 Limitation applies to voidable fraud/mistake transactions; a void ab initio deed needs no cancellation. Ningawwa: misrepresentation as to character = void, as to contents = voidable. A registered deed is presumed valid; a 1979 suit to set aside a 1961 sale was barred. Isolates Contract Act s.19 (voidability of agreements without free consent). Do not pad Limitation 59 (not in sections.csv as 59) or SRA 31.
On this section: SRA 31 cancellation is the remedy for a voidable instrument and is limitation-bound; a void ab initio deed needs no cancellation (Prem Singh). Existing CNR already on contract-act 19; remap only. Do not pad Limitation 3.
-
Satya Pal Anand vs State of M. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a party has resorted to multiple proceedings for the same relief and has an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy available and pending, the High Court in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is justified in declining to interfere. The remedy of writ is extraordinary and equitable, and the High Court cannot be oblivious to the conduct of the party invoking that remedy. Furthermore, in the absence of express statutory rules in a State (like Andhra Pradesh Rule 26(k)(i)) requiring presence of both parties for registration of an Extinguishment Deed, the registration of such a deed by the Sub-Registrar following the procedure prescribed in the Registration Act 1908 cannot be declared void ab initio merely because one party was not present. The Sub-Registrar's role is exhausted once the document is registered, and the Sub-Registrar has no power to cancel registration. The validity of such registered documents can be challenged before the Civil Court or the appropriate statutory Forum.
On this section: Section 31 deals with cancellation of instruments. The dissenting judge argued that unilateral cancellation violates this provision.
-
Seema Thakur vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judicial admissions made by a party in pleadings in earlier civil proceedings constitute a waiver of proof and are fully binding on the party making them. Such admissions stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions and cannot be explained away by alleging collusion between advocates or subsequent disputes between parties. A party cannot contradict judicial admissions made in earlier proceedings and set up a different case in a subsequent suit. Where clear and categorical judicial admissions exist, a suit can be dismissed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC without requiring further trial. Additionally, a suit for cancellation of voidable property documents must be filed within three years of the fact coming to knowledge of the plaintiff, and failure to do so renders the suit barred by limitation.
On this section: Suit for cancellation of voidable documents must be filed within three years of the fact coming to knowledge of plaintiff
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Golam Lalchand and, therefore, is not entitle to any relief in this suit. The argument has been noted only to be rejected for the simple reason that Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 uses the word 'may' for getting declared the instrument as void which is not imperative in every case, more particularly when the person is not a party to such an instrument. - 24. The suit property which is undivided is left with the co-owners to proceed in accordance with …
-
… In Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Regency Mahavir Properties[43]( page-58-0) , legal proceedings for cancellation of documents <span id="page-58-0"></span><sup>43</sup> Civil Appeal No. 5147 of 2016, decided on 19.08.2020 under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 were held to be actions in personam and not actions in rem . Significantly, the judgment refers to the definition of action in rem by R.H. Graveson (Conflict of Laws 98, 7th ed. 1974), which reads as under: > "An action in rem is one in which the judgment of the Court …
-
… In Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Regency Mahavir Properties[43]( page-58-0) , legal proceedings for cancellation of documents <span id="page-58-0"></span><sup>43</sup> Civil Appeal No. 5147 of 2016, decided on 19.08.2020 under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 were held to be actions in personam and not actions in rem . Significantly, the judgment refers to the definition of action in rem by R.H. Graveson (Conflict of Laws 98, 7th ed. 1974), which reads as under: > "An action in rem is one in which the judgment of the Court …
Questions about Section 31
What have the courts held on Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act?
Prem Singh v. Birbal (02 May 2006) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: SRA 31 cancellation is the remedy for a voidable instrument and is limitation-bound; a void ab initio deed needs no cancellation (Prem Singh). Existing CNR already on contract-act 19; remap only. Do not pad Limitation 3. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2016.
How do I find court cases under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Specific Relief Act 31, section 31 Specific Relief Act, section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. People searching for it also type specific relief act 31 34 38. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Prem Singh v. Birbal (02 May 2006).
What should I read with Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act come into force?
Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, cited as Specific Relief Act 31, came into force on 01 Mar 1964, having been enacted on 13 Dec 1963. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 12. Specific performance of part of contract391 words
- 28. Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed382 words
- 15. Who may obtain specific performance330 words
- 13. Rights of purchaser or lessee against person with no title or imperfect title309 words
- 26. When instrument may be rectified292 words
- 20. Substituted performance of contract269 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.