Specific Relief Act limits cancellation and declaration where a party accepted benefit under the challenged transaction.

Cancellation under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act was unavailable because the plaintiff failed to prove fraud, real legal injury, or any basis for treating the surrender deed as void or voidable, and he had derived benefit from the transaction. Declaratory relief under Section 42 also failed because the plaintiff, having been a party to the surrender and the later sale-deeds and having accepted consideration, could not repudiate the instruments merely by alleging they were disadvantageous or part of a device. The challenge to the surrender deed and subsequent alienations therefore failed, and dismissal with costs was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to cancellation of the deed of surrender under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. (ii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act that the deed of surrender and the subsequent sale-deeds were not binding on him.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to cancellation of the deed of surrender under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act.

Analysis: Relief by way of cancellation is available only where the instrument is void or voidable, the plaintiff reasonably apprehends serious injury from its being left outstanding, and it is reasonable and proper for the Court to grant protective relief. The plaintiff failed to establish fraud or any real injury from the surrender deed. He had derived benefit under the transaction and the case did not disclose the kind of legal prejudice that would justify cancellation.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to cancellation under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act that the deed of surrender and the subsequent sale-deeds were not binding on him.

Analysis: A declaration under Section 42 requires an existing legal character or right to property and denial or threatened denial by the defendant so as to create a cloud on title. The defendants accepted the transactions, and the plaintiff, being a party to the surrender and the sale-deeds, could not treat them as void after having acted upon them and received consideration. The plaintiff also failed to prove that the transactions were a device or that the surrender was invalid on the grounds alleged.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to declaratory relief under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the surrender deed and the subsequent alienations failed, and the decree of dismissal was upheld with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A party to a voluntary instrument, who has derived benefit under it and fails to prove fraud or legally cognisable injury, cannot obtain cancellation or declaratory relief merely by alleging that the transaction was disadvantageous or part of a device.

---