The necessity for a party seeking specific performance to demonstrate readiness and willingness, coupled with the invalidity of claims based on a revoked power of attorney.

JUDGMENT :

S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.

1. The subject matter of these two appeals is common and the contesting parties in these two appeals are also common, and therefore, the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment, with the consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties.

2. Suit in O.S.No.1176/1996 was filed by S.Rayappan seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 16.01.1982 said to have been executed in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property by defendant nos.1 & 2 in the suit, and to cancel the registered sale deed dated 02.04.1994 said to have been executed by defendant nos.1 & 2 in favour of defendant no.3 in the suit.

3. The Trial Court vide the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2003 has dismissed the suit in O.S.No.1176/1996, and aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff in the said suit viz., S.Rayappan, is before this Court in RFA.No.410/2004.

4. During the pendency of RFA.No.410/2004, it appears that S.Rayappan had executed a registered sale deed dated 26.05.2012 in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of his son R.Bosco on the strength of the registered power of attorney executed by defendant nos.1 & 2 in O.S.No.1176/1996 in favour of S.Rayappan. Alleging that defendant no.3 in O.S.No.1176/1996 viz., Smt. Munivenkatamma tried to interfere with the possession of the suit schedule property by the purchasers under the registered sale deed dated 26.05.2012, suit in O.S.No.5402/2014 was filed by R.Bosco S/o S.Rayappan seeking the relief of permanent injunction against Smt. Munivenkatamma. The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 29.06.2022. Aggrieved by the same, R.Bosco S/o S.Rayappan has filed RFA.No.1621/2022 before this Court.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Trial Court was not justified in dismissing O.S.No.1176/1996 having recorded a finding that the plaintiff in the said suit had proved the agreement in question. He submits that defendants in the said suit had not at all contested the claim of the plaintiff, and therefore, the Trial Court ought to have decreed the suit. He further submits that the sale deed was executed by S.Rayappan in favour of his son R.Bosco on the basis of the irrevocable power of attorney executed by defendant nos.1 & 2 in O.S.No.1176/1996. Since the power of attorney was coupled with interest, the same could not have been cancelled by the executors. He submits that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in dismissing the suit O.S.No.5402/2014.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 in RFA.No.410/2004 who is the sole contesting respondent, submits that RFA.No.410/2004 was dismissed for non-prosecution by this Court, and thereafter, under a registered sale deed dated 12.03.2024, the suit schedule property had been sold in favour of one Smt. Jayapritha. Therefore, no relief can be granted in these appeals. He, accordingly prays to dismiss the appeals.

8. Re: RFA.No.410/2004: Suit in O.S.No.1176/1996 was filed with a prayer to cancel the registered sale deed dated 02.04.1994 executed by defendant nos.1 & 2 in favour of defendant no.3 - Smt. Munivenkatamma, and also for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 16.01.1982 said to have been executed by defendant nos.1 & 2 in favour of the plaintiff.

9. Defendant nos.1 & 2 were placed ex-parte in O.S.No.1176/1996. Defendant no.3 had filed her written statement and based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court had framed as many as five Issues in the suit.

10. Plaintiff had exami