In Annamalai v. Vasanthi and Others [2025 INSC 1267], the Supreme Court clarified the remedies available for a document that is void ab initio (void from the beginning).
The Court affirmed that a void document is a nullity (non est) in the eyes of the law, and a decree to “set it aside” is not strictly necessary. However, the appropriate legal remedy depends on the plaintiff’s possession and the nature of the dispute.
If the plaintiff is in possession, he can file a suit seeking a declaration that the void instrument is not binding on them.
If the Plaintiff is not in possession, he can simply sue for possession (a consequential relief), and the court will ignore the void document as if it never existed.
Crucial Distinction in the Suits Based on Termination of Contract
In suits for specific performance based on a contract, a declaration is necessary when the contract itself gives a party the right to unilaterally terminate under certain conditions, and that party exercises such a right.
If the contract is not terminable, then the termination is invalid an d declaration is not necessary.
Examples of Both Scenario
For example, when a contract allows a buyer to terminate if a ‘force majeure’ event occurs the buyer terminates, claiming such an event happened. Such an action casts a “cloud” on the contract’s subsistence. The termination is prima facie valid under the contract’s own terms.
Then the aggrieved party cannot just sue for specific performance. They must first seek a declaration that the termination was invalid (e.g., that the ‘force majeure’ event did not actually occur).
On the other hand, a declaration is not necessary when a party terminates the contract without any contractual right to do so. In such a case the termination is not under the contract, but a simple breach by repudiation.
Then the aggrieved party can treat the contract as still subsisting and sue directly for specific performance without needing to ask the court to declare the (already invalid) termination void.
