Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the defendant against concurrent decrees for specific performance of an agreement for sale of a house. The agreement was executed on 16.03.1988 for Rs.1,50,000, with Rs.15,000 paid upfront. A subsequent agreement on 20.06.1988 required the sale deed to be executed within 15 days of the defendant obtaining release of the property from mortgage, with further payments of Rs.53,000 and Rs.2,000 made. The defendant redeemed the mortgage on 04.07.1989 and intimated the plaintiff on 27.07.1989, providing a photocopy of the release deed. The plaintiff disputed the redemption and demanded a no-dues certificate. The defendant cancelled the agreement on 01.09.1989 and forfeited the earnest money. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance without challenging the cancellation. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first and second appeals were dismissed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness as he did not enter the witness box; his power of attorney holder could not depose on matters within the plaintiff's personal knowledge. The court also held that the suit for specific performance was not maintainable without challenging the cancellation of the agreement. The concurrent findings were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - Plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract - Mere assertion in plaint insufficient - Failure to enter witness box raises adverse presumption (Paras 5-8). B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 60 - Power of Attorney Holder - Cannot depose for principal on matters within principal's personal knowledge - Power of attorney holder cannot prove readiness and willingness of principal (Paras 5-6). C) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 - Maintainability of Suit - Suit for specific performance simpliciter without challenging cancellation of agreement is not maintainable - Agreement becomes non-existent after cancellation (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance must prove readiness and willingness by entering the witness box, and whether a suit for specific performance is maintainable without challenging the cancellation of the agreement.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders, and dismissed the suit for specific performance.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Power of attorney holder testimony
- Cancellation of agreement
- Adverse presumption
