Summary
The Supreme Court decreed specific performance of the agreement to sell for the respondent's 1/11th share in land on which a school stood. The respondent had herself sworn an undisputed affidavit dated 30 April 2013 ratifying her brother's acts as power of attorney holder and consenting to the transfer, so limitation ran from that date. Her claim that the power of attorney stood revoked in 2002 was contrary to the record, and the buyer's readiness and willingness was shown by his payment to the other eight co-sharers and the sale deed they executed. A connected interim order putting the school's management with the District Education Officer was set aside as no longer needed.
Issues
- Whether the unregistered power of attorney given by the respondent to her brother stood revoked in 2002 when she executed a registered power of attorney in favour of her son, so that the agreement's extensions and payments did not bind her.
- Whether the suit for specific performance filed in 2013 was barred by limitation.
- Whether the plaintiff-appellant proved his readiness and willingness to perform the agreement.
- Whether the High Court's interim arrangement vesting management of the school in the District Education Officer should continue (Civil Appeal No. 3895 of 2022).
Provisions considered
- Article 54 of the Schedule, Limitation Act, 1963The courts below held the suit time-barred under the three-year period of Article 54. The Court held that, reading the 2012 revocation notice together with the respondent's affidavit of 30 April 2013, limitation ran from the affidavit's date, when she finally refused to execute the sale deed. The 2013 suit was therefore within time. (¶¶ 13, 25, 35, 36, 37)
- Readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, Specific Relief Act, 1963The High Court had found that readiness and willingness was not proved because the payments and extensions were made only through the brother. The Court reversed this: after the last extension the plaintiff paid the balance consideration, which the eight other co-sharers accepted and for which they executed a sale deed on 8 May 2013. (¶¶ 11, 12, 33, 38)
- Rule 5A, Chapter III, Kerala Education Rules, 2005This rule was relied on for the requirement of a minimum of three acres to run a higher secondary school. Because specific performance was decreed, the appellant would have the full three acres, so the interim arrangement for managing the school was no longer needed. (¶¶ 47, 51, 52)
Held
- The respondent's plea that her unregistered power of attorney in favour of her brother stood revoked in 2002, when she executed a registered power of attorney in favour of her son, was untenable and contrary to the record. The extensions of the agreement were proved, the first revocation notice was published only in 2012, and she did not dispute the validity of the 2007 agreement her brother executed under that power of attorney. (¶ 34)
- The respondent's affidavit of 30 April 2013 was decisive. Its execution was not disputed and she did not enter the witness box. In it she ratified her brother's acts as attorney and gave her no-objection to transferring ownership and management of the school and its land to the appellant. (¶¶ 35, 37)
- Limitation for the suit for specific performance ran from 30 April 2013, the date of the affidavit, when the respondent finally refused to execute the sale deed for her share. The suit instituted in 2013 was within time, and the courts below erred in holding it barred. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37)
- Readiness and willingness was wrongly decided against the plaintiff. After the last extension he paid the remaining consideration, which the eight other co-sharers accepted, and they executed a sale deed in his favour on 8 May 2013. (¶¶ 38, 39)
- Once specific performance was granted, the appellant would have the full three acres needed to run the school. The High Court's interim order placing the school's management with the District Education Officer was therefore no longer needed and was set aside. (¶¶ 51, 52, 53)
Result
Both appeals allowed. In Civil Appeal No. 3894 of 2022 the judgments of the courts below were set aside and the appellant held entitled to conveyance of the respondent's 1/11th share. The trial court is to determine the balance consideration with reference to the original agreement price plus 9% simple interest; the appellant is to deposit it within two months of that determination, after which a registered sale deed is to be executed. In Civil Appeal No. 3895 of 2022 the High Court's interim order dated 19 November 2021 was set aside. No costs.