Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has held that in suits for specific performance of a contract, the plaintiff must personally prove their readiness and willingness to perform the contract. This ruling emphasizes that a Power of Attorney Holder cannot substitute the plaintiff’s personal testimony regarding such crucial matters. The decision was delivered in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. Anand Kumar & Ors.
Case Background
The case involved a suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff to execute an agreement for the sale of a property. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff based on the deposition of the plaintiff’s Power of Attorney Holder. However, the High Court reversed this decision, noting that the plaintiff did not personally appear in the witness box to testify about their readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
Supreme Court’s Observations on Specific Performance Contract Suits
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prashant Kumar Mishra, upheld the High Court’s decision. The Court observed,
“We are of the view that in view of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, in a suit for specific performance wherein the plaintiff is required to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract, a Power of Attorney Holder is not entitled to depose in place and instead of the plaintiff.”
Requirement of Personal Testimony
The Court clarified that for a plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, they must personally step into the witness box and subject themselves to cross-examination. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, authoring the judgment, stated,
“If a plaintiff, in a suit for specific performance, is required to prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, it is necessary for him to step into the witness box and depose the said fact and subject himself to cross-examination on that issue. Having failed to step into the witness box to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract would result in rejection of the suit of specific performance due to non-fulfillment of the requisites of Section 12 of Specific Relief Act, 1963.”
Role of Power of Attorney Holder
The Supreme Court highlighted the limitations of a Power of Attorney Holder in providing testimony about matters only the principal can have personal knowledge of. The Court noted,
“In other words, if the Power of Attorney Holder has rendered some ‘acts’ in pursuance of power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the act done by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter of which only the principal can have personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross-examined.”
Conclusion: Upholding Personal Testimony in Specific Performance Contract Suits
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajesh Kumar vs. Anand Kumar & Ors. underscores the crucial role of personal testimony in specific performance contract suits. It reaffirms the necessity for plaintiffs to directly testify to their readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations. This ruling clarifies the limitations of Power of Attorney Holders and promotes transparency and accountability in contractual disputes.
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar vs. Anand Kumar & Ors.
