Is Personal Testimony Crucial in Specific Performance? SC Explains!

Key Judicial Interpretation

The Supreme Court emphasized that a Power of Attorney holder cannot substitute for the principal in testifying about matters of personal knowledge, especially in cases involving specific performance where the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to perform the contract must be proven personally (paras 12-13).

Court’s View

The Court held that the agreement to sell was void as it was not executed by all co-owners and the plaintiff’s non-appearance in the witness box undermined his case for specific performance of the contract (paras 6-7).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appellant’s suit for specific performance due to the absence of signatures from all co-owners and the plaintiff’s failure to personally testify regarding his readiness and willingness to perform the contract (paras 19-20).

Relevant Acts, Sections, Provisions, and Rules Cited

Sections 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, Order 3 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Case of the Appellant

The appellant, Rajesh Kumar, argued that he had a valid agreement to sell the land and had fulfilled his part of the contract by paying the earnest money and extending the contract multiple times.

Appellant Relied On

The appellant relied on the initial agreement and the subsequent payments and extensions agreed upon with the Power of Attorney holder of the co-owners.

Case of the Respondent

The respondents argued that the agreement was void as it was not executed by all co-owners and challenged the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to perform the contract, noting the plaintiff’s failure to appear as a witness.

Respondent Relied On

The respondents relied on the absence of signatures from all co-owners on the agreement and legal principles that require the plaintiff to testify personally in specific performance cases.

Question & Answer

Question: Why did the Supreme Court dismiss the appellant’s suit for specific performance?
Answer: The Supreme Court dismissed the suit because the agreement was not executed by all co-owners and the appellant failed to personally testify about his readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which are critical elements in a specific performance case (paras 6-7, 12-13).

Question: What is the significance of the plaintiff appearing in the witness box in a suit for specific performance?
Answer: The plaintiff’s appearance in the witness box is crucial to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract. If the plaintiff does not testify, a presumption arises that the case set up by him is not correct (paras 12-13).

Question: How did the Supreme Court view the Power of Attorney holder’s testimony in this case?
Answer: The Supreme Court held that the Power of Attorney holder’s testimony was insufficient as it could not substitute for the principal’s personal knowledge and readiness to perform the contract (paras 8-9).

Question: What did the Supreme Court say about agreements not signed by all co-owners?
Answer: The Supreme Court affirmed that agreements not signed by all co-owners are void for specific performance, as co-owners must consent to sell their undivided shares (para 7).

Question: What was the Court’s view on the timing of filing the suit?
Answer: The Court found that filing the suit at the end of the limitation period, without a reasonable explanation for the delay, indicated a lack of diligence, which negatively impacted the claim for specific performance (paras 13-14).

Details of Case

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Date of Order: May 17, 2024
Case Name: Rajesh Kumar vs. Anand Kumar & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 7840 of 2023