A partner discovers fraud inducing a partnership agreement and then freely and expressly ratifies it. Under section 27(2)(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which statement is correct?
Question and options
A partner discovers fraud inducing a partnership agreement and then freely and expressly ratifies it. Under section 27(2)(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which statement is correct?
Rescission remains absolute despite ratification.
The court may refuse rescission because of ratification.
Ratification bars rescission only if it is made in writing.
The court must rescind merely because fraud occurred at the outset.
Answer and explanation
Under section 27(2)(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the court may refuse rescission where the plaintiff has expressly or impliedly ratified the contract. A partner who freely and expressly ratifies the agreement after discovering the fraud therefore risks losing the remedy, so rescission is neither absolute nor compulsory merely because fraud once occurred. The provision draws no distinction between written and other ratification; implied ratification is enough.
Practice for these exams
-
All India Bar Examination (AIBE)
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
Delhi Judicial Services
-
Bihar Judicial Services
Subject revision
-
Uttarakhand Judicial Services
Subject revision
Related question papers
Related exam syllabi
More solved explanations in Rectification, rescission & cancellation of instruments
- Section 30 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 applies when:
- The principle embodied in Section 30 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is:
- Under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is a suit for rescission of a contract maintainable?
- What period does section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 itself fix for discovering the fraud or mutual mistake on which a claim for rectification is based?
- Under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, even when rescission is possible, the court may: