Power of attorney cannot depose for principal’s personal knowledge of "readiness and willingness" in specific performance.

The plaintiff/respondent filed a civil suit for specific performance regarding an agreement to sell dated 12/05/2012.

While the execution of the agreement was admitted by the defendants/appellants, they challenged the trial court's finding on the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness.

the parties initially filed a compromise application under Order 23 CPC, where the plaintiff paid ₹6,00,000 in cash and offered a banker’s cheque for the remaining ₹14,00,000.

the defendants resiled from the compromise, claiming the payment was delayed by twelve days.

The defendants further argued that the plaintiff failed to personally depose in court to prove readiness and willingness, sending a Power of Attorney (PoA) holder instead.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff on 09/04/2018.

1. Whether a Power of Attorney holder can depose on behalf of the principal to prove "readiness and willingness" in a suit for specific performance.

2. Whether the plaintiff demonstrated continuous readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract despite not appearing as the primary witness for the entire duration of the trial.

Section 96 of the CPC regarding first appeals.

PoA holder cannot depose for matters requiring personal knowledge of the principal, such as "state of mind" (readiness and willingness), unless the PoA holder manages all affairs of the principal.

Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. IndusInd Bank Ltd. and Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha

Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar regarding the limitations of PoA testimony.

Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi regarding the binding nature of compromise agreements and the inability of parties to resile from settlements unless procured by fraud or coercion.

The Court noted that while generally a PoA holder cannot prove the principal's readiness, the defendants' argument was factually incorrect as the plaintiff had appeared as PW-1 during the compromise proceedings.

The Court distinguished "readiness" (capacity/funds) from "willingness" (desire to perform).

The Court found that the plaintiff’s conduct—paying ₹6,00,000 cash in open court and producing a banker's cheque for ₹14,00,000—was conclusive proof of both financial capacity and a bona fide desire to conclude the sale.

The Court condemned the defendants' "adamant attitude" in retaining the cash and refusing to execute the deed after a valid compromise, holding that the subsequent failure of the compromise did not negate the evidence of the plaintiff's prior readiness.

The High Court affirmed the judgment and decree dated 09/04/2018 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Gwalior and the appeal was dismissed.