A power-of-attorney holder lacking personal knowledge cannot prove the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness.

The plaintiff sought specific performance of a 17 March 2004 agreement to purchase premises in Bankura for ₹5,00,000.

The agreement provided for a reduced price if a rented shop on the premises was not vacated.

The plaintiff alleged that he paid ₹1,00,000 under the agreement and that the defendants later received a further ₹60,000, but the shop was not vacated.

The plaintiff’s brother, acting as his power-of-attorney holder, testified at trial; the plaintiff did not enter the witness box.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit for failure to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

The plaintiff appealed.

1. Whether the plaintiff’s conduct established the readiness and willingness required by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

2. Whether a power-of-attorney holder could give evidence for the plaintiff under Order III, Rules 1 and 2, CPC, in relation to matters requiring the plaintiff’s personal knowledge

3. Whether the Trial Court’s judgment and decree suffered from legal infirmity or perversity

Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 requires a party seeking specific performance to aver and prove that the party has performed, or has always been ready and willing to perform, the essential terms of the contract; where payment is required, actual tender or deposit is unnecessary unless directed by the court.

Readiness concerns the plaintiff’s capacity, including financial capacity, while willingness concerns the plaintiff’s conduct.

Under Order III, Rules 1 and 2, CPC, a power-of-attorney holder may testify about acts done by the holder and matters within the holder’s personal knowledge, but cannot substitute for the principal on matters within the principal’s personal knowledge and subject to cross-examination.

R. Shama Naik v. Srinivasiah, SLP (C) No. 13933/2021, 28 November 2024

Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. IndusInd Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217; Mahinder Kaur v. Sant Paul Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 358; and Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 981

The Court held that readiness and willingness were essential to the plaintiff’s claim and had to be proved continuously.

The plaintiff’s brother’s testimony could not discharge that burden insofar as it concerned the plaintiff’s own readiness and willingness, which required evidence from the plaintiff on matters within his personal knowledge.

The Court therefore found that the plaintiff had failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness and that the power-of-attorney evidence was insufficient.

It distinguished the appellant’s reliance on Daljit Singh Sondhi v. Ranjit Kaur, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 27, as a partition case.

It directed return of the Trial Court Records and made no order as to costs.