Failure to prove financial capacity for balance consideration negates readiness and willingness in specific performance suits.

The Plaintiff (Appellant) entered into a registered sale agreement (Ex.A1) on 13.01.2011 with Defendant No. 2 (Respondent No. 2) to purchase the suit property for ₹2,60,000/-, paying an advance of ₹75,000/-.

Defendant No. 2 executed the agreement as the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of her brother, Defendant No. 1 (Respondent No. 1).

Notably, Defendant No. 2 is the Plaintiff’s wife.

Defendant No. 1 challenged the GPA (Ex.A1), alleging it was obtained through undue influence due to family disputes, and denied receiving the advance.

Both the Trial Court (O.S. No. 1074 of 2012) and the First Appellate Court (A.S. No. 56 of 2017) dismissed the suit for specific performance, citing lack of possession and the collusive nature of the transaction between the spouses.

1. Whether the lower courts erred in law by rejecting the Power of Attorney (Ex.A1) despite the first respondent admitting his signature and failing to prove fraud or undue influence?

2. Whether the court was justified in dismissing the suit given the first respondent's failure to rebut the presumption of genuineness of registered documents under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act?

3. Whether the denial of specific performance for a valid registered sale agreement was contrary to the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and settled law?

Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which mandates that a plaintiff must aver and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract.

The principle that specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief.

Section 206 of the Indian Contract Act via Gopamma v. Murugesan, requiring reasonable notice for revocation of agency to be effective.

N. Basuvaraj v. Gullamma, which establishes the "twin factors" for specific performance: an enforceable agreement and the satisfaction of the court regarding the plaintiff's readiness and willingness.

The High Court observed that while the lower courts correctly found the first defendant failed to prove "undue influence" and was thus bound by the GPA executed in favor of his sister (the plaintiff's wife), this did not automatically entitle the plaintiff to a decree.

The High Court found a fatal flaw in the plaintiff's case: the total absence of evidence regarding "readiness and willingness".

There were no documents (bank statements or financial records) to prove the plaintiff possessed the balance sale consideration of ₹1,85,000/- at any relevant time.

The plaintiff failed to deposit the balance in court during the pendency of the suit.

The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal, answering the substantial questions of law against the Appellant, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts without order as to costs.