Evidence of Power of Attorney holder insufficient to prove readiness and willingness in specific performance suits.

The plaintiff (appellant) entered into a notarized agreement to sell with the defendant (respondent) on 15.03.2011 for agricultural land in Ghogha

The total consideration was ₹2,52,000/-, with ₹52,000/- paid as earnest money and a 180-day stipulated period for completion

The defendant cancelled the agreement via public notice on 30.11.2011, alleging breach of time limits

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance without seeking a declaration to set aside the cancellation

During the trial, the plaintiff did not testify; instead, her estranged ex-husband deposed as her Power of Attorney (POA) holder

Both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit

1. Whether the plaintiff proved "readiness and willingness" under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act when she failed to personally step into the witness box

2. Whether a Power of Attorney holder can depose on behalf of the principal regarding facts within the principal’s personal knowledge

3. Whether a suit for specific performance is maintainable without seeking a declaration to set aside the unilateral cancellation of the agreement

Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which mandates that a plaintiff must aver and prove continuous readiness and willingness as a condition precedent for specific performance

Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha [(2010) 10 SCC 512] and Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar [(2024) 13 SCC 80], establishing that a POA holder cannot depose for acts of which only the principal has personal knowledge, such as "readiness and willingness"

I.S. Sikandar v. K. Subramani [(2013) 15 SCC 27], which holds that a suit for specific performance of a cancelled agreement is not maintainable unless the termination is specifically challenged

The High Court observed that readiness and willingness are matters of personal conduct and state of mind, requiring the plaintiff to subject herself to cross-examination

The POA holder, the plaintiff's ex-husband, lacked personal knowledge of the initial transaction and could not legally substitute for the plaintiff’s testimony

The court noted that the plaintiff failed to show any proactive steps taken within the 180-day period stipulated in the contract

Additionally, since the defendant had already cancelled the agreement via public notice, the plaintiff’s failure to seek a declaratory relief against said cancellation rendered the suit for specific performance legally untenable as the contract was non-existent at the time of filing

The court affirmed the lower courts' findings that: (a) the plaintiff failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness; (b) the POA holder was incompetent to testify on personal matters of the principal; and (c) the suit was not maintainable without challenging the cancellation of the agreement

The relief of specific performance, being discretionary, was rightly refused. Connected civil applications were also disposed of