AI Overview...

Can a Legal Representative Testify for the Complainant in a Suit for Specific Performance?

In property disputes across India, suits for specific performance are common when buyers seek court orders to enforce sale agreements. A critical question arises: Can a legal representative provide testimony for the complainant (plaintiff) in such suits? This issue hinges on proving the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, a mandatory requirement under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

This blog examines key judicial precedents, limitations of power of attorney holders, and procedural rules under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). While courts strictly enforce these rules, outcomes depend on case facts. Note: This is general information, not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.

Understanding Specific Performance Suits

Specific performance is an equitable remedy where courts direct parties to fulfill contractual obligations, especially for immovable property sales. Unlike damages, it compels actual execution of the sale deed.

Core Requirement: Readiness and Willingness

Under Section 16(c), the plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract from execution until the suit's final decree. Failure leads to dismissal, even if the defendant breached first. Man Kaur (Dead) By Lrs. VS Hartar Singh Sangha - 2010 7 Supreme 209

• Pleadings must be specific: Vague claims fail; plaintiff must aver financial capacity and steps taken. Santram Yadav, (Died), S/o. Babulal Yadav, Through Lrs.- Smt. Dulauri Yadav vs Durga Prasad Koiry, S/o. Kanhai Lal Koiry - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 20403


• Evidence beyond affidavits: Self-serving affidavits aren't enough; concrete proof like bank statements or witness testimony is needed. AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2012 7 Supreme 716

Courts emphasize: The plaintiff should not only plead and prove the terms of the agreement, but should also plead and prove his readiness and willingness to perform his obligations in terms of the contract. Man Kaur (Dead) By Lrs. VS Hartar Singh Sangha - 2010 7 Supreme 209

Role of Legal Representatives and Power of Attorney Holders

The query focuses on whether a legal representative (e.g., power of attorney holder, heir, or agent) can testify instead of the plaintiff. Judicial rulings clarify strict limits.

Power of Attorney Holders Cannot Substitute for Principal

CPC Order III, Rules 1 and 2 allow agents to act for principals but exclude testimony on matters of personal knowledge.

• Key Ruling: The term 'acts' in O. III, r. (1) and (2) would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. Man Kaur (Dead) By Lrs. VS Hartar Singh Sangha - 2010 7 Supreme 209


• A PoA holder can testify on acts they performed (e.g., payments made by them), but not on the principal's state of mind, capacity, or readiness. Rajesh Kumar VS Anand Kumar - 2024 5 Supreme 54

In one case, the Supreme Court held: If Power of Attorney Holder has rendered some ‘acts’ in pursuance of power of attorney, he may depose for principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for principal for act done by principal and not by him. Rajesh Kumar VS Anand Kumar - 2024 5 Supreme 54

Example: In a suit involving an NRI plaintiff, the PoA holder testified, but lacked personal knowledge of the transaction or readiness. The suit failed for non-compliance with Section 16(c). Man Kaur (Dead) By Lrs. VS Hartar Singh Sangha - 2010 7 Supreme 209

Plaintiff's Personal Testimony is Essential

Courts mandate the plaintiff enter the witness box:

• State of mind proof: Readiness involves state of mind and conduct of purchaser, as also his capacity and preparedness. A third party lacks this knowledge. Rajesh Kumar VS Anand Kumar - 2024 5 Supreme 54


• Cross-examination right: Defendants must cross-examine the plaintiff on personal matters. PoA testimony denies this, violating natural justice. AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2012 7 Supreme 716

A third party having no personal knowledge about transaction cannot give evidence about readiness and willingness. Rajesh Kumar VS Anand Kumar - 2024 5 Supreme 54

Landmark Cases on Testimony in Specific Performance

Case 1: Failure of PoA TestimonyMan Kaur (Dead) By Lrs. VS Hartar Singh Sangha - 2010 7 Supreme 209

Plaintiff (NRI) sued via PoA holder. Trial court granted relief, but appeals revealed no valid evidence of readiness. Supreme Court: Suit must fail without plaintiff's testimony.

Case 2: Attorney Holder's LimitsRajesh Kumar VS Anand Kumar - 2024 5 Supreme 54

Plaintiff's PoA deposed instead of principal after long delay. High Court upheld dismissal: Plaintiff cannot examine in his place, his attorney holder who did not have personal knowledge either of transaction or of his readiness and willingness.

Case 3: Legal Heirs and RepresentativesK. S. Vidyanadam VS Vairavan - 1997 2 Supreme 597

In disputes involving deceased parties, legal heirs must prove their own readiness if substituted. Mere inheritance doesn't allow proxy testimony on original contract matters.

Contrasting Views on Related Issues

While PoA can't fully substitute, courts allow limited evidence:
- Attesting witnesses can prove execution, but aren't parties. THAVARAYIL SALIM vs THEKKEVEETTIL KARUVANTEVALAPPIL SARU UMM - 2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29182
- Ex parte decrees may be set aside if defendants lacked opportunity to contest. D. Koteeswaran Reddy vs G. Janarthanam - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 59948

Second Appeals and Substantial Questions of Law

High Courts in second appeals (CPC Section 100) won't interfere with concurrent findings unless a substantial question of law exists, like procedural lapses in testimony. Kondiba Dagadu Kadam VS Savitribai Sopan Gujar - 1999 4 Supreme 108

Concurrent findings of facts howsoever erroneous cannot be disturbed by High Court... The second appeal cannot be decided on merely equitable grounds. Kondiba Dagadu Kadam VS Savitribai Sopan Gujar - 1999 4 Supreme 108

Practical Implications for Litigants

Pro Tips for Plaintiffs

1. Plaintiff must testify personally on readiness (funds, notices sent, demands made).


2. File timely: Delay + low earnest money bars relief, especially in urban properties. K. S. Vidyanadam VS Vairavan - 1997 2 Supreme 597


3. Strong pleadings: Specify dates, amounts, and steps taken. The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman VS Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee - 2012 4 Supreme 289


4. Alternative relief: Seek refund of advance under Specific Relief Act Section 22. Manganalli Santhosh, S/o. Chinnayyan VS M. K. Narayani @ K. Sannamma, Widow of Govindan - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 872

For Defendants

• Challenge PoA testimony early.


• Prove plaintiff's laches or incapacity.


• Argue discretionary denial under Section 20. The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman VS Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee - 2012 4 Supreme 289

Procedural Safeguards

• Locus standi: Only aggrieved parties sue; strangers can't. AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2012 7 Supreme 716


• Impleadment: Expected lessees/purchasers aren't necessary parties. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. VS Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 6 Supreme 78

Recent Trends and Exceptions

Courts occasionally condone delays for settlements OMANAKUTTAN vs AJITH KUMAR SO RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI - 2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29408, but testimony rules remain rigid. In fraud cases, burden shifts slightly, but plaintiff still proves basics. Chabila VS Ramawatar - 2022 Supreme(All) 1098

Digital filings and PoAs surged post-COVID, but Supreme Court reiterated personal testimony in 2023-24 rulings.

Key Takeaways

| Aspect | Ruling | Key Section/Rule |
|--------|--------|------------------|
| PoA Testimony | Limited to own acts; no personal knowledge | CPC Order III R.1-2 Man Kaur (Dead) By Lrs. VS Hartar Singh Sangha - 2010 7 Supreme 209 |
| Plaintiff Duty | Must depose personally on readiness | SRA §16(c) Rajesh Kumar VS Anand Kumar - 2024 5 Supreme 54 |
| Proof Standard | Continuous willingness + capacity | Throughout suit Man Kaur (Dead) By Lrs. VS Hartar Singh Sangha - 2010 7 Supreme 209 |
| Second Appeal | Only substantial law questions | CPC §100 Kondiba Dagadu Kadam VS Savitribai Sopan Gujar - 1999 4 Supreme 108 |
| Exceptions | Acts by agent only | Personal matters excluded |

Bottom Line: Generally, a legal representative cannot fully testify for the complainant in specific performance suits. The plaintiff must personally prove readiness to avoid dismissal. This upholds fairness and prevents proxy litigation.

For complex property suits, early legal consultation is crucial. Outcomes vary by facts, jurisdiction, and evidence.

Disclaimer: This post summarizes precedents for educational purposes. Laws evolve; seek professional advice for case-specific guidance.