Specific performance is a discretionary equitable relief; the existence of a valid agreement is insufficient. The plaintiff must affirmatively demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform their obligations, supported by evidence of financial capacity. Absence of such proof warrants the denial of the claim.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

The plaintiff, in a suit for specific performance is the appellant, aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court.

2. The second appeal was admitted on 05.12.2024 on the following substantial questions of law:

“(i) Whether the Courts below are correct in law in not accepting Exhibit A1, the Power of Attorney, when the first respondent himself has admitted his signature and its execution failed to prove that the Power of Attorney has been obtained by undue influence and created by fraud?

(ii) Whether the Court below is justified in dismissing the suit especially when the first respondent failed to rebut the presumption under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act as to the genuineness of the registered documents Exhibits A1 and A2?

(iii) Whether the Judgements of the Courts below are justified in declining the decree of specific performance of a legal and valid registered agreement to sale executed in favour of the plaintiff contrary to the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the law laid down by the Apex Court?"

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

4. I have heard Mrs. P.Jessi Jeeva Priya, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.M.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the first respondent.

5. Brief facts that are necessary for deciding the second appeal are as hereunder:

The plaintiff entered into a registered agreement of sale with the second defendant on 13.01.2011 for purchasing the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,60,000/-. The plaintiff had advanced a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards part payment to the second defendant. The agreement was to be concluded within 2 ½ years, on receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs.1,85,000/-. The plaintiff contending that the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and despite demands, including lawyer's notice dated 19.06.2012, the defendants have neither come forward to execute the sale deed nor issued any reply and hence, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the present suit, particularly in view of the fact that third parties are attempting to alienate the suit property.

6. The suit was resisted by the first defendant stating that the first defendant is the owner of the property and the second defendant is the sister of the first defendant. The plaintiff’s claim is that the first defendant has denied the plaintiff’s contention that he executed a power of attorney on 26.08.2004, appointing the second defendant as his General Power of Attorney. He would further state that the second defendant is none other than the wife of the plaintiff. It is alleged that, on imaginary and untenable grounds, the plaintiff and the second defendant claim to have obtained a General Power of Attorney, and that the same was registered, though the first defendant had no occasion to appoint his sister as his power of attorney agent and the first defendant has not received any advance as alleged by the plaintiff. Any sale agreement executed by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff, will not bind the first defendant. The first defendant had originally married the plaintiff’s daughter, however, the marriage was not a happy one. Subsequently, the first defendant married another woman and begot four children. It is alleged that, only in order to wreak vengeance, the prese