Readiness and willingness in specific performance, plus defective power of attorney proof, defeated the claim and restored dismissal.

Failure to prove readiness and willingness was held fatal to a claim for specific performance, and the distinction between pleading and proof was treated as material. The court also held that the power of attorney could not be relied on as evidence because it was not duly authenticated or proved in the manner required by the governing evidentiary and registration rules. On those grounds, the decree for specific performance was set aside and the trial court's dismissal of the suit was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether non-compliance with the requirement of readiness and willingness defeated the claim for specific performance; (ii) whether the power of attorney was admissible and validly proved as evidence.

Issue (i): whether non-compliance with the requirement of readiness and willingness defeated the claim for specific performance.

Analysis: The finding was that the plaintiff had not established readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The court below had treated the defect as insufficient by itself to deny relief, but the present court held that the distinction between pleading and proof was material and that the plaintiff's failure on this requirement was fatal to the claim for specific performance.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the appellant's challenge to the decree of specific performance.

Issue (ii): whether the power of attorney was admissible and validly proved as evidence.

Analysis: The document was assessed under the requirements governing proof and authentication of a power of attorney. As it was executed at a place different from the residence of the parties and was not authenticated or registered in the manner contemplated, it was held not to be a valid piece of evidence. On that basis, the agreement and the claimed readiness and willingness founded on it could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the appellant's contention that the document could not support the claim.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the first appellate court was set aside and the dismissal of the suit by the trial court was restored, resulting in success for the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for specific performance, failure to establish readiness and willingness is fatal, and a power of attorney that is not duly authenticated or proved in accordance with the governing evidentiary and registration requirements cannot sustain the claim.

---