suit for specific performance = Validity of Evidence of Power of Attorney Holder of the Plaintiff = It is an undisputed fact that the suit property stood redeemed from mortgage on 04.07.1989. The appellant sent due intimation by registered post to the respondent on 27.07.1989 and also provided him with a photocopy of the release deed, requiring the respondent to take steps for execution of the sale deed. The respondent by reply dated 02.08.1989 insisted on the no­dues certificate, denying receipt of the release deed. The respondent then gave a power of attorney on 02.11.1989 to PW­1. The witness was naturally unaware of the preceding events and denied receipt of the notice dated 27.07.1989 itself. The witness was therefore also incompetent to deny receipt of photocopy of the release documents by the respondent. It was for the respondent to establish his readiness and willingness for execution of the agreement by entering the witness box and proving his capacity to pay the balance consideration amount. Except for the solitary statement in the plaint no evidence whatsoever was led on behalf of the respondent with regard to the same, if PW­1 was competent to depose with regard to the same because these were facts which had to be personal to the knowledge of the respondent alone. Had the witness even led any documentary evidence on behalf of the respondent, in support of the plea for readiness and willingness on part of the respondent, different considerations may have arisen. The witness also sought to deny any knowledge regarding the cancellation of the agreement on 01.09.1989. Without Declaration – Specific Performance is not maintainable = As could be seen from the prayer sought for in the original suit, the Plaintiff has not sought for declaratory relief to declare the termination of Agreement of Sale as bad in law. In the absence of such prayer by the Plaintiff the original suit filed by him before the trial court for grant of decree for specific performance in respect of the suit schedule property on the basis of Agreement of Sale and consequential relief of decree for permanent injunction is not maintainable in law. Therefore, we have to hold that the relief sought for by the Plaintiff for grant of decree for specific performance of execution of sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in his favour on the basis of non existing Agreement of Sale is wholly unsustainable in law….” Readiness and willingness can not be inferred – it should be proved by the plaintiff = merely because the respondent may not have been satisfied by the intimation given by the appellant regarding release of the property from mortgage, it cannot be construed as readiness and willingness on part of the respondent and his capacity to perform his obligations under the agreement, particularly when he is stated to have subsequently migrated to America and in which circumstance he executed the power of attorney in favour of PW­1. The relief of specific performance being discretionary in nature, the respondent cannot be held to have established his case for grant of such relief. The conclusions of the High Court, both on aspects of readiness and willingness of the respondent and lack of due intimation by the appellant to the respondent regarding redemption of the mortgage are held to be sunsustainable.

NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2869­2870 OF 2010
MOHINDER KAUR …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SANT PAUL SINGH …RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
NAVIN SINHA, J.
The defendant is in appeal, aggrieved by the concurrent
findings decreeing the suit for specific performance filed by the
respondent.

  1. An agreement for sale with regard to House no.3343/3,
    situated in Rupnagar Municipality was executed between the
    parties on 16.03.1988 for an agreed consideration of
    Rs.1,50,000/­. At the time of execution, a sum of Rs.15,000/­
    was paid. As the suit property stood mortgaged to the education
    department, a further agreement dated 20.06.1988 was executed
    between the parties, that the sale deed would be executed within
    1
    15 days of the defendant obtaining release of the property from
    mortgage, giving due intimation to the plaintiff. A further sum of
    Rs.53,000/­ and cash of Rs.2,000/­ was paid to the defendant.
    The appellant after redemption of the mortgage, intimated the
    respondent on 27.07.1989 in accordance with the agreement,
    requiring payment of balance consideration and execution of the
    sale deed. The respondent disputed the redemption requiring
    proof of the same. The appellant, after due notice cancelled the
    agreement for sale on 01.09.1989 and forfeited the earnest
    money. The plaintiff then filed the instant suit seeking specific
    performance of the agreement by the defendant. The suit was
    decreed and the appeal preferred by the defendant was also
    dismissed. The second appeal of the defendant having also been
    dismissed, the present appeal has been lodged before this Court.
  2. Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel appearing
    for the appellant, submitted that indisputably due intimation was
    given to the respondent after redemption of the mortgage, as
    required under the agreement. The respondent raised frivolous
    objections and failed to perform its obligations by payment of the
    2
    balance consideration amount and to take steps for execution of
    the sale deed. The appellant, after due notice cancelled the
    agreement and confiscated the amount paid, for lapses of the
    respondent. Relying on I.S. Sikandar (D) by L.Rs. vs. K.
    Subramani and Ors., (2013) 15 SCC 27, it was submitted that
    the suit for specific performance simpliciter was not maintainable
    in absence of any challenge to the cancellation of the agreement,
    and seeking consequential declaratory relief. It was next
    submitted that the respondent did not enter the witness box to
    establish his readiness and willingness to perform his obligations
    under the agreement for sale. PW­1 was a power of attorney
    holder from the respondent by execution on 02.11.1989. She was
    not competent to depose with regard to events prior to the same,
    especially with regard to facts personal to the knowledge of the
    respondent. Reliance was placed on Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani
    and Ors. vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Ors., (2005) 2 SCC 217.
    Mere bald assertions in the plaint, were not sufficient, in absence
    of any evidence to establish readiness and willingness. Relaince
    was placed on Vijay Kumar and Ors. vs. Om Parkash, 2018
    (15) SCALE 65.
    3
  3. Shri Vineet Bhagat, learned counsel for the respondent,
    submitted that the appellant did not give proper intimation
    regarding the redemption from mortgage of the suit property. The
    respondent was always ready and willing to perform his
    obligations under the agreement, but was hindered by the
    conduct of the appellant in not placing correct and relevant
    information in accordance with the agreement.
  4. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the
    parties. It is an undisputed fact that the suit property stood
    redeemed from mortgage on 04.07.1989. The appellant sent due
    intimation by registered post to the respondent on 27.07.1989
    and also provided him with a photocopy of the release deed,
    requiring the respondent to take steps for execution of the sale
    deed. The respondent by reply dated 02.08.1989 insisted on the
    no­dues certificate, denying receipt of the release deed. The
    respondent then gave a power of attorney on 02.11.1989 to PW­1.
    The witness was naturally unaware of the preceding events and
    denied receipt of the notice dated 27.07.1989 itself. The witness
    4
    was therefore also incompetent to deny receipt of photocopy of
    the release documents by the respondent. It was for the
    respondent to establish his readiness and willingness for
    execution of the agreement by entering the witness box and
    proving his capacity to pay the balance consideration amount.
    Except for the solitary statement in the plaint no evidence
    whatsoever was led on behalf of the respondent with regard to
    the same, if PW­1 was competent to depose with regard to the
    same because these were facts which had to be personal to the
    knowledge of the respondent alone. Had the witness even led any
    documentary evidence on behalf of the respondent, in support of
    the plea for readiness and willingness on part of the respondent,
    different considerations may have arisen. The witness also
    sought to deny any knowledge regarding the cancellation of the
    agreement on 01.09.1989.
  5. In Janki Vashdeo (supra), it was held that a power of
    attorney holder, who has acted in pursuance of the said power,
    may depose on behalf of the principal in respect of such acts but
    cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal
    5
    and not by the power of attorney holder. Likewise, the power of
    attorney holder cannot depose for the principal in respect of
    matters of which the principal alone can have personal
    knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be
    cross­examined. In our opinion, the failure of the respondent to
    appear in the witness box can well be considered to raise an
    adverse presumption against him as further observed therein as
    follows :
    “15. Apart from what has been stated, this
    Court in the case of Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao
    observed at SCC pp. 583­84, para 17 that:
    “17. Where a party to the suit does not
    appear in the witness box and states his
    own case on oath and does not offer
    himself to be cross­examined by the other
    side, a presumption would arise that the
    case set up by him is not correct….”
  6. The agreement was cancelled by the appellant on
    01.09.1989 and the consideration already paid confiscated under
    intimation to the respondent. The respondent never challenged
    the communication of cancellation. In Sikandar (supra) it was
    observed as follows:
    “37. As could be seen from the prayer sought
    for in the original suit, the Plaintiff has not
    6
    sought for declaratory relief to declare the
    termination of Agreement of Sale as bad in law.
    In the absence of such prayer by the Plaintiff
    the original suit filed by him before the trial
    court for grant of decree for specific
    performance in respect of the suit schedule
    property on the basis of Agreement of Sale and
    consequential relief of decree for permanent
    injunction is not maintainable in law.
  7. Therefore, we have to hold that the relief
    sought for by the Plaintiff for grant of decree
    for specific performance of execution of sale
    deed in respect of the suit schedule property in
    his favour on the basis of non existing
    Agreement of Sale is wholly unsustainable in
    law….”
  8. We are of the considered opinion that merely because the
    respondent may not have been satisfied by the intimation given
    by the appellant regarding release of the property from mortgage,
    it cannot be construed as readiness and willingness on part of
    the respondent and his capacity to perform his obligations under
    the agreement, particularly when he is stated to have
    subsequently migrated to America and in which circumstance he
    executed the power of attorney in favour of PW­1. The relief of
    specific performance being discretionary in nature, the
    respondent cannot be held to have established his case for grant
    of such relief. The conclusions of the High Court, both on aspects
    7
    of readiness and willingness of the respondent and lack of due
    intimation by the appellant to the respondent regarding
    redemption of the mortgage are held to be unsustainable.
  9. We are therefore unable to sustain the impugned orders
    under appeal which are accordingly set aside. The appeals are
    allowed.
    ………………………….J.
    [NAVIN SINHA]
    ………………………….J.
    [INDIRA BANERJEE]
    NEW DELHI
    OCTOBER 01, 2019
    8