Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Ss. 16(c), 20
Specific performance — Readiness and willingness — Erroneous rejection by courts below.
Where the plaintiff proves continuous extensions of the agreement, payment of consideration, and execution of partial sale deeds by co-sharers, the finding that the plaintiff lacked readiness and willingness is unsustainable. Acceptance of balance consideration by majority co-owners and conduct consistent with performance negate the plea of lack of readiness and willingness.
(Paras 34, 38–39)
Limitation Act, 1963 — Art. 54
Commencement of limitation — Subsequent ratification — Fresh cause of action.
Where the defendant executes a subsequent affidavit expressly ratifying the agreement and acts of the power-of-attorney holder, limitation commences from the date of such ratification. Suit instituted within three years from the date of the ratifying affidavit is within limitation.
(Paras 35–37)
Power of Attorney — Ratification — Legal effect
Unregistered power of attorney — Subsequent affidavit ratifying acts — Binding effect.
An affidavit executed by the principal expressly ratifying acts performed by the power-of-attorney holder and conveying no-objection to transfer of property operates as valid ratification, rendering such acts binding, notwithstanding earlier disputes regarding authority or registration of the power of attorney.
(Paras 35–37)
Evidence — Adverse inference
Party not entering witness box — Effect.
Where execution of a crucial affidavit is admitted and the defendant does not enter the witness box to disown or explain the same, reliance on testimony of an attorney holder alone is insufficient to discredit such document.
(Paras 22, 35)
Specific performance — Co-sharers’ property — Partial execution
Decree for remaining undivided share — Permissible.
Where co-sharers have already conveyed their respective shares and refusal by one co-sharer is found unjustified, the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance to the extent of the remaining undivided share, subject to payment of balance consideration with interest.
(Paras 38–41)
Equitable considerations — Conduct of parties
Refusal despite fair offer — Relevant factor.
Conduct of the defendant in refusing reasonable monetary settlement, despite knowledge that denial would frustrate lawful functioning of an educational institution, is a relevant factor while balancing equities in granting specific performance.
(Paras 31–32)
Kerala Education Rules — School land requirement
Minimum land extent — Consequence of refusal to convey share.
Where refusal to convey a fractional share would reduce school land below the statutory minimum prescribed for a higher secondary school, courts may take note of such statutory consequence while granting equitable relief.
(Paras 16, 29–31, 51)
Writ proceedings — Interim management order — Effect of decree
Subsequent decree of specific performance — Interim arrangement rendered redundant.
Once specific performance is granted resulting in availability of entire required land extent, interim orders vesting school management with authorities during pendency of dispute cease to have justification and are liable to be set aside.
(Paras 51–53)
ANALYSIS (Issue-wise with Paragraph References)
I. Readiness and Willingness (Paras 34, 38–39)
The Supreme Court found that the High Court and trial court erred in holding against the plaintiff on readiness and willingness. Multiple extensions of the agreement, acceptance of consideration, and execution of sale deed by eight co-sharers conclusively demonstrated the plaintiff’s intent and capacity to perform.
II. Limitation under Article 54 (Paras 35–37)
The crucial ratifying affidavit dated 30.04.2013 constituted a fresh acknowledgment and consent to transfer. The Court held that limitation began from this date, not from earlier extensions, rendering the suit filed in 2013 within time.
III. Effect of Ratification by Affidavit (Paras 35–37)
The affidavit expressly ratified all acts of the power-of-attorney holder and conveyed no objection to transfer of ownership and management. This ratification cured any alleged defect in authority and bound the defendant.
IV. Adverse Inference from Non-Examination (Paras 22, 35)
The defendant did not step into the witness box to deny or explain the affidavit. The Court treated this omission as significant, holding that reliance solely on testimony of her son could not displace the admitted document.
V. Grant of Specific Performance for 1/11th Share (Paras 38–41)
Given that 10/11th share already stood conveyed and refusal by the defendant was unjustified, the Court granted specific performance for the remaining 1/11th share, directing determination of balance consideration with 9% simple interest.
VI. Impact on Connected Writ Appeal (Paras 51–53)
With specific performance granted, the statutory land requirement under the Kerala Education Rules stood satisfied. Consequently, interim orders placing school management with the District Education Officer were rendered unnecessary and set aside.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Where a co-sharer expressly ratifies an agreement to sell and the acts of a power-of-attorney holder by a subsequent affidavit, limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act commences from the date of such ratification, and refusal thereafter is unjustified; in such circumstances, denial of specific performance on grounds of limitation or lack of readiness and willingness is unsustainable, and specific performance may be granted for the remaining undivided share.
