Specific performance and readiness evidence: SC rejects power-of-attorney substitution and restores decree after incomplete appellate review.

In a specific performance dispute, the SC held that the plaintiff's readiness and willingness had to be assessed on the pleadings and evidence, and the contrary High Court finding was perverse and unsustainable because the plaintiff's financial capacity was shown on record. It also reaffirmed that a power-of-attorney holder may testify to acts done under authority but cannot replace the principal on matters within the principal's personal knowledge, where cross-examination of the principal is required. The Court further held that the first appeal was improperly decided because all material issues were not addressed in compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, and restored the trial court decree granting specific performance over the remaining suit property, with refund of the compensation amount received.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and the High Court's contrary finding could stand; (ii) whether the evidence of the power-of-attorney holder could substitute the principal's evidence on matters within the principal's personal knowledge; (iii) whether the High Court's disposal of the first appeal without dealing with all material issues and the consequent denial of specific performance was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and the High Court's contrary finding could stand.

Analysis: The pleadings consistently asserted the plaintiff's readiness and willingness, and the evidence showed that the plaintiff had the financial capacity to complete the transaction. The adverse finding of the High Court was held to be contrary to the evidence on record and therefore perverse. The Court also noted that the alleged inability of the plaintiff to complete the contract was not established by reliable evidence.

Conclusion: The finding that the plaintiff was not ready and willing was set aside and the issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue (ii): whether the evidence of the power-of-attorney holder could substitute the principal's evidence on matters within the principal's personal knowledge.

Analysis: A power-of-attorney holder may depose about acts done by him in pursuance of the authority, but cannot depose for the principal in respect of matters that depend on the principal's personal knowledge and on which the principal is liable to be cross-examined. The Court applied this principle to reject the contrary approach suggested in the case.

Conclusion: The power-of-attorney holder could not replace the principal's testimony on matters requiring the principal's personal knowledge.

Issue (iii): whether the High Court's disposal of the first appeal without dealing with all material issues and the consequent denial of specific performance was sustainable.

Analysis: The High Court was found to have addressed only one issue in substance and to have omitted consideration of other material issues, including the consequential questions arising from the plaintiff's entitlement to specific performance. On the facts, the trial court's decree was restored, and the plaintiff was held entitled to enforcement of the agreement in respect of the available suit land, subject to the excluded portions already stated in the judgment.

Conclusion: The High Court's judgment was set aside and the trial court's decree was restored in favour of the plaintiff.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the plaintiff obtained restoration of the decree for specific performance over the remaining suit property, along with the obligation to refund the compensation amount received.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for specific performance, a finding on readiness and willingness must be supported by the evidence, and a power-of-attorney holder cannot depose in place of the principal on matters within the principal's personal knowledge; an appellate court must deal with all material issues in conformity with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---