Specific Performance Suit Can’t Be Decreed Based On Power Of Attorney Holder’s Deposition About Plaintiff’s Readiness & Willingness

Summary:

[1]The case involves the execution and enforceability of a sale agreement by a Power of Attorney (PoA) holder. The plaintiff sought specific performance of the agreement, alleging that the PoA holder validly executed the contract on behalf of the co-owners of the property. The primary legal issue revolves around whether a PoA holder can depose on behalf of the principal in a civil suit for specific performance and whether the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform the contract can be proven through the testimony of the PoA holder.

Facts:

The initial sale agreement was executed by Defendant No. 1, who was claimed to be the PoA holder of Defendants Nos. 2 to 11, the co-owners of the property. The plaintiff filed the suit within the limitation period, on the last permissible date. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding the execution of the sale agreement by the PoA holder as valid. The High Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision, dismissing the suit on the grounds that the PoA holder could not depose for the plaintiff regarding matters requiring personal knowledge and that the plaintiff did not personally appear as a witness.

Issues:

1. Whether the PoA holder validly executed the sale agreement on behalf of all co-owners.
2. Whether a PoA holder can depose on behalf of the principal in a civil suit for specific performance.
3. Whether the plaintiff can prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract through the PoA holder’s testimony.

Judgment:

The High Court held that the PoA holder cannot depose on behalf of the principal for actions and transactions requiring personal knowledge of the principal. Specifically, the plaintiff must personally testify to their readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as these aspects involve the plaintiff’s state of mind and conduct. The High Court also found that the initial agreement did not sufficiently establish that all co-owners authorized the sale through the PoA holder.

Analysis:

This case underscores the strict interpretation of the role and limitations of a PoA holder in legal proceedings involving specific performance of contracts. The judgment aligns with the established principle that personal testimony is crucial in matters involving personal conduct, state of mind, and obligations under a contract. The plaintiff’s failure to personally appear and testify about their readiness and willingness to fulfil the contract obligations was pivotal in the dismissal of the suit. This judgment serves as a significant reminder of the necessity for principals to directly engage in legal proceedings where their personal knowledge and intentions are in question, and it clarifies the evidentiary limitations of PoA holders in such contexts.

[1] https://www.sci.gov.in/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php?action=get_court_pdf&diary_no=398102016&type=j&order_date=2024-05-17&from=latest_judgements_order

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

RAJESH KUMAR V. ANAND KUMAR & ORS.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7840 OF 2023

JUDGMENT DATED 17th MAY, 2024