The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar & Ors., while keeping Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in mind, held that a suit for specific performance cannot be decreed based on the deposition made by the plaintiff’s power of attorney in respect of the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to perform a contract.

The key consideration highlighted while arriving at the aforesaid conclusion was the meaning and understanding of the term “readiness and willingness”. The same being interpreted to allude to the state of mind and conduct of the purchaser (plaintiff) as also his capacity and preparedness, and the former without the latter or vice versa is not sufficient.

The court observed as under:

“The attorney-holder cannot depose or give evidence in place of his principal for the acts done by the principal or transactions or dealings of the principal, of which principal alone has personal knowledge.”

It was further held that 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. In the present case, since the plaintiff had failed to do the same, he has not been able to prove the pre-requisites of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

The Hon’ble Court vide the same judgment touched upon another important aspect in respect of decreeing a suit for specific performance of a contract whereby it reiterated the position that filing a suit for specific performance within the three-year limitation period does not automatically translate to the grant of liberty to a plaintiff to file a suit at the last moment and obtain specific performance despite knowing about the breach of contract. The court also referred to one of its earlier judgments and the relevant extracts are as under:

“In Saradamani Kandappan vs. S. Rajalakshmi & Ors., this Court held that every suit for specific performance need not be decreed merely because it is filed within the period of limitation by ignoring time limits stipulated in the agreement. The courts will also frown upon suits which are not filed immediately after the breach/refusal. The fact that limitation is three years does not mean that a purchaser can wait for one or two years to file a suit and obtain specific performance.”“In Saradamani Kandappan vs. S. Rajalakshmi & Ors., this Court held that every suit for specific performance need not be decreed merely because it is filed within the period of limitation by ignoring time limits stipulated in the agreement. The courts will also frown upon suits which are not filed immediately after the breach/refusal. The fact that limitation is three years does not mean that a purchaser can wait for one or two years to file a suit and obtain specific performance.”