In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that a suit for specific performance cannot be decreed based solely on the deposition of a power of attorney holder regarding the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness. This decision underscores the necessity for direct evidence from the principal in such cases.
Case Background
The case involved a dispute where the plaintiff sought specific performance of a contract based on the testimony of their power of attorney holder. The trial court had initially decreed in favor of the plaintiff, but the decision was challenged on the grounds that the power of attorney holder’s testimony was insufficient to establish the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to perform the contractual obligations.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court emphasized that while a power of attorney holder can act on behalf of the principal in various capacities, their deposition cannot substitute the personal testimony of the principal regarding critical issues such as readiness and willingness in specific performance suits. The Court referenced its earlier judgment in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., which delineated the limitations of a power of attorney holder’s ability to depose on behalf of the principal.
The Court stated that acts performed by the power of attorney holder within the scope of their authority could be testified to by the holder, but the principal must personally testify to their own readiness and willingness to fulfill contractual obligations. This requirement is crucial to ensure the authenticity and credibility of the plaintiff’s claims in specific performance suits【241†source】【242†source】.
Implications
This ruling reinforces the importance of personal testimony in legal proceedings involving specific performance. It ensures that the court receives direct evidence from the party responsible for the contractual obligations, thereby maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a critical reminder for plaintiffs in specific performance suits to provide direct testimony regarding their readiness and willingness to perform contractual duties. Reliance solely on a power of attorney holder’s deposition is insufficient to meet the legal requirements for such cases.