Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a registered agreement of sale dated 13.01.2011, executed by the second defendant (sister of the first defendant) in respect of a property owned by the first defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the first defendant had executed a registered Power of Attorney (Exhibit A1) on 26.08.2004 in favor of the second defendant, authorizing her to sell the property. The plaintiff paid Rs.75,000 as advance out of the total consideration of Rs.2,60,000, with the balance to be paid within 2.5 years. The plaintiff alleged readiness and willingness and sent a lawyer's notice on 19.06.2012. The first defendant denied the Power of Attorney, alleging it was obtained by fraud and undue influence, and that the second defendant was the plaintiff's wife. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The plaintiff filed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court framed three substantial questions of law regarding the acceptance of the Power of Attorney, the presumption under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act, and the decree of specific performance. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact were not perverse and that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness. The Power of Attorney was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, and the presumption of genuineness was rebutted. The second appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgments of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - The plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. In the absence of such proof, the suit for specific performance cannot be decreed. (Paras 5-10) B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114(e) - Presumption as to Genuineness of Registered Documents - The presumption under Section 114(e) is rebuttable. When the execution of a registered document is admitted, the burden shifts to the party challenging it to prove fraud or undue influence. However, the court may consider surrounding circumstances to determine the genuineness of the document. (Paras 11-15) C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The substantial questions of law must arise from the findings of the courts below. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below erred in not accepting the registered Power of Attorney (Exhibit A1) and the registered agreement of sale (Exhibit A2) despite the first defendant admitting his signature, and whether the suit for specific performance ought to have been decreed.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Power of attorney
- Presumption of genuineness of registered documents
- Section 114(e) Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- Readiness and willingness
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Substantial question of law
