Specific performance requires proof of authority, personal evidence of readiness and willingness, and timely pursuit of the claim.

An agreement to sell could not bind all co-owners where it was signed only by one person, the co-owners were not named, and the alleged power of attorney was neither produced nor proved. In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must personally establish readiness and willingness on matters within his own knowledge; a power of attorney holder cannot replace that evidence. The plaintiff's failure to enter the witness box, coupled with a delay in filing the suit after knowledge of the later sale, justified refusal of the equitable relief and sustained dismissal of the claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the agreement to sell was duly proved as executed by all co-owners or through a valid power of attorney, and (ii) whether the plaintiff's failure to enter the witness box and the delayed filing of the suit disentitled him to specific performance.

Issue (i): Whether the agreement to sell was duly proved as executed by all co-owners or through a valid power of attorney.

Analysis: The agreement and subsequent endorsements were signed only by one person, while the names of all co-owners were not mentioned and the alleged power of attorney authorising execution on their behalf was neither produced nor proved. In the absence of proof of authority, the execution could not be treated as an agreement by all co-owners. A suit for specific performance cannot be decreed against non-signatory co-owners on such unproved footing.

Conclusion: The agreement was not proved to have been executed by all co-owners, and the claim for specific performance on that basis failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff's failure to enter the witness box and the delayed filing of the suit disentitled him to specific performance.

Analysis: In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness as a matter within his personal knowledge and must ordinarily subject himself to cross-examination. A power of attorney holder can speak only to acts within his own knowledge and cannot depose in place of the principal on matters such as readiness and willingness. The suit was also instituted at the last stage of limitation after substantial delay despite knowledge of the subsequent sale, which made the relief discretionary and unsuitable on the facts.

Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness through admissible evidence, and the delay provided an additional ground to refuse specific performance.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's decision was rejected, and the dismissal of the suit for specific performance was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must personally prove readiness and willingness where that fact lies within his own knowledge, and a power of attorney holder cannot substitute for the plaintiff on such matters; further, an unproved authority cannot bind non-signatory co-owners to the agreement.

---