https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298900 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. en-us Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Nov 2021 15:51:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298900 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298900