Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-003894-003894 – 2022 |
| Diary Number | 25230/2020 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules Kerala High Court judgment in RFA No. 267/2016 and Sub-Judge Chavakkad decree in O.S. No. 862/2013 |
| Type of Law | Civil – Contract Law / Specific Performance |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that the affidavit of 30 April 2013 effecting ratification of the unregistered power of attorney and consenting to transfer constituted a fresh refusal to execute a sale deed, thereby resetting the three-year limitation under Article 54 from that date. The affidavit, an admitted document, also established the plaintiff’s continued readiness and willingness under the Specific Relief Act. Concurrent findings on limitation and readiness were accordingly set aside. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Property devolved on nine heirs; unregistered POA granted to eldest son in 2002 and registered POA to respondent’s son; agreement for sale executed on 14 May 2007 for ₹2.7 crore and extended thrice; revocation notice published 14 Nov 2012; respondent’s affidavit of ratification dated 30 April 2013 consenting to transfer; eight siblings conveyed 10/11 share on 8 May 2013; respondent refused 1/11 share and suit filed May 2013; lower courts dismissed on limitation and readiness. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and High Courts in specific performance and contract disputes |
| Overrules | Kerala High Court in RFA No. 267 of 2016 and Sub-Judge Chavakkad judgment in O.S. No. 862/2013 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- A post-agreement affidavit ratifying an unregistered power of attorney constitutes fresh refusal, resetting the limitation clock under Article 54.
- Such an affidavit, being an admission by the executant, can establish the requisite readiness and willingness for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act.
- An unregistered power of attorney, once ratified by the executant, cannot later be contested on revocation grounds without the executant’s own testimony.
- Limitation for specific performance begins from the date of last denial of performance (ratifying affidavit), not the date of initial breach or extension.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court recorded that the agreement dated 14 May 2007 was validly executed and extended, with consideration paid and eight co-sharers conveying their shares on 8 May 2013.
- Publication of revocation notice in November 2012 did not affect the continuing authority, since respondent executed an unchallenged affidavit on 30 April 2013 expressly ratifying all acts under the earlier unregistered POA and consenting to transfer.
- Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, limitation runs from the date of refusal to perform a contract; here that refusal occurred on 30 April 2013, when the ratification affidavit was executed.
- The affidavit demonstrated the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to perform, defeating the High Court’s finding of lack of readiness.
- Concurrent findings on limitation and readiness were thus held to be erroneous, warranting specific performance and calculation of balance consideration with interest.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The affidavit (Exh. A5) of 30 April 2013 ratified the unregistered POA and demonstrated consent to transfer, establishing readiness and willingness.
- A registered POA in favour of respondent’s son did not revoke the earlier unregistered POA once ratified.
- The suit was filed within three years from the date of the ratifying affidavit.
- Maintaining a three-acre campus for the higher secondary school required the entire tract, necessitating specific performance of the 1/11th share.
Respondent
- The unregistered POA (Exh. A4) stood revoked on 4 September 2002 upon execution of a registered POA (Exh. B1).
- The unregistered POA did not authorize conveyance to a third party; the agreement was thus invalid.
- The suit, filed in 2013, was barred by limitation since breach occurred in 2008.
- The affidavit was executed merely to maintain school operations, not to transfer property.
- Offered a counter-proposal of ₹3 crore to purchase the entire property.
Factual Background
The plaint schedule property of approximately 3 acres 35 cents devolved upon nine heirs following a partition deed. An unregistered power of attorney was granted to the eldest son in September 2002, followed by a registered POA to respondent’s son a day later. The eldest son executed an agreement for sale in May 2007 (consideration ₹2.7 crore), extended thrice; eight heirs conveyed their shares on 8 May 2013. A notice revoking the unregistered POA was published 14 November 2012, but the respondent then executed an affidavit on 30 April 2013 ratifying all acts and consenting to transfer. The respondent later refused to execute the sale deed for her 1/11th share, leading to a suit for specific performance in May 2013, dismissed by both the trial court and Kerala High Court on limitation and readiness grounds.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 54, Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963: three-year limitation for suit on contract for specific performance runs from date of breach or refusal, here 30 April 2013.
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: a plaintiff must show readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations; ratification by affidavit satisfies this requirement.
- Doctrine of ratification: an executant’s post-hoc approval of unauthorized acts under a power of attorney validates prior transactions and precludes challenge.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms established principles on limitation and readiness under specific performance jurisprudence.