The Legal Issue
The Calcutta High Court addressed two critical issues concerning suits for specific performance: first, the mandatory requirement for a plaintiff to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; and second, the admissibility of testimony by a Power of Attorney (POA) holder regarding facts exclusively within the personal knowledge of the principal, particularly concerning 'readiness and willingness'. The Court examined whether a POA holder could effectively depose on such personal matters, considering the principles of direct evidence.
Court's Reasoning
The High Court reiterated that Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, imposes a strict obligation on the plaintiff to plead and prove their continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. This readiness and willingness must be demonstrated not merely at the time of filing the suit but throughout the entire period until the decree is passed. The Court emphasized that 'readiness' refers to financial capacity, while 'willingness' denotes the intention to perform. Both must be present and proven.
Crucially, the Court held that a Power of Attorney holder, while competent to perform acts on behalf of the principal, cannot depose on facts that are exclusively within the personal knowledge of the principal. The Court referenced Order III Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the principles of direct evidence under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (or Section 58 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, counsel should confirm which applies). Testimony regarding the principal's personal 'readiness and willingness' would constitute hearsay if given by a POA holder, as the POA holder cannot have direct personal knowledge of the principal's state of mind or financial capacity. Therefore, such testimony is inadmissible and cannot discharge the plaintiff's burden of proof.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly impacts the strategy for specific performance suits. It reinforces the stringent requirement for plaintiffs to personally demonstrate their continuous readiness and willingness, making it clear that this burden cannot be delegated to a Power of Attorney holder for testimonial purposes. Advocates must advise their clients that the plaintiff's personal testimony, supported by documentary evidence of financial capacity, is indispensable. Relying solely on a POA holder's deposition for these crucial aspects will likely result in the dismissal of the suit. This ruling ensures that the court receives direct evidence on the plaintiff's intent and capacity, preventing the use of hearsay for fundamental elements of the cause of action.