Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Suit for specific performance – Limitation – Readiness and willingness – Power of Attorney – Ratification – Erroneous rejection of suit by Trial Court and High Court – Decree of specific performance granted. A. Limitation – Article 54, Limitation Act, 1963 Paras 35–37 Facts: Agreement to sell (Exh. A1) dated 14.05.2007. Three extensions proved (2008, 2010, 2011). Newspaper notice (14.11.2012) revoking unregistered POA (Exh. A4). Affidavit (Exh. A5) dated 30.04.2013 ratifying POA and consenting to transfer. Suit filed in 2013. Held: Affidavit (Exh. A5) unequivocally ratified acts of POA holder and conveyed no-objection to transfer. Limitation would commence from 30.04.2013 (date of affidavit), when final refusal crystallised. Suit instituted within prescribed period. Trial Court and High Court erred in reckoning limitation from earlier date.

advocatemmmohan

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Suit for specific performance – Limitation – Readiness and willingness – Power of Attorney – Ratification – Erroneous rejection of suit by Trial Court and High Court – Decree of specific performance granted.

---

A. Limitation – Article 54, Limitation Act, 1963

Paras 35–37

Facts:

• Agreement to sell (Exh. A1) dated 14.05.2007.

• Three extensions proved (2008, 2010, 2011).

• Newspaper notice (14.11.2012) revoking unregistered POA (Exh. A4).

• Affidavit (Exh. A5) dated 30.04.2013 ratifying POA and consenting to transfer.

• Suit filed in 2013.

Held:

1. Affidavit (Exh. A5) unequivocally ratified acts of POA holder and conveyed no-objection to transfer.

2. Limitation would commence from 30.04.2013 (date of affidavit), when final refusal crystallised.

3. Suit instituted within prescribed period.

4. Trial Court and High Court erred in reckoning limitation from earlier date.

---

B. Power of Attorney – Revocation & Ratification

Paras 34–35

• Theory that unregistered POA (Exh. A4) stood revoked in 2002 upon execution of registered POA (Exh. B1) held untenable.

• Agreement (Exh. A1) executed in 2007 on basis of Exh. A4 was never disputed.

• Subsequent affidavit (Exh. A5) expressly ratified acts of POA holder.

• Defendant did not step into witness box; affidavit remained unrebutted.

Held:

Ratification validated prior acts; revocation theory contrary to record.

---

C. Readiness and Willingness – Specific Relief Act

Paras 34, 38

• Extensions duly proved.

• Remaining 8 co-sharers executed sale deed for 10/11th share (08.05.2013).

• Balance consideration paid.

Held:

Plaintiff established continuous readiness and willingness; contrary finding of High Court unsustainable.

---

D. Relief Granted

• Impugned judgments set aside.

• Plaintiff entitled to conveyance of 1/11th share of defendant.

• Trial Court to determine balance consideration with 9% simple interest.

• Plaintiff to deposit amount within two months; registered sale deed to follow.

---

E. Kerala Education Rules – School Land Requirement

Context:

• Higher secondary school required minimum 3 acres under Kerala Education Rules.

• Without defendant’s 1/11th share, school land would fall below statutory minimum.

Decree ensured compliance with statutory requirement.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Where a defendant ratifies acts of a power of attorney holder through an admitted affidavit expressly consenting to transfer, limitation for specific performance begins from the date of such final refusal/ratification context, not from earlier extension dates.

2. Ratification cures alleged defects relating to authority of power of attorney holder.

3. Continuous extensions, partial performance by other co-sharers, and payment of consideration establish readiness and willingness under the Specific Relief Act.

4. Courts must evaluate limitation and readiness based on cumulative factual matrix, not in isolation.

---

RESULT

Civil Appeal No. 3894 of 2022 – Allowed.
Decree for specific performance granted.

Civil Appeal No. 3895 of 2022 – Allowed.
Interim arrangement regarding school management set aside in view of decree.

No costs.