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 |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules the High Court judgment dated 16 October 2020 |
| Type of Law | Civil — Specific performance of contract; Limitation Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether a subsequent affidavit ratifying an unregistered power of attorney and its acts resets the limitation period and satisfies readiness and willingness for specific performance? |
| Ratio Decidendi (3–8 sentences) |
The Court held that a defendant’s unchallenged affidavit ratifying an unregistered power of attorney and all acts thereunder constitutes an admission and resets the date of refusal for limitation. Since limitation began to run only after the affidavit (30 April 2013) and the suit was filed within three years thereafter, the suit was not time-barred. The affidavit also demonstrated continued readiness and willingness by the plaintiff to perform the contract. Both the trial Court and the High Court erred in dismissing the claim on limitation and non-readiness grounds. Specific performance for the 1/11th share was accordingly directed, with simple interest at 9% on the balance consideration. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | A defendant’s affidavit ratifying prior acts under a power of attorney binds the executant; limitation is triggered by the date of final refusal to execute a sale deed; readiness and willingness for specific performance can be established by unchallenged admissions. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The dispute concerned a 3 acre 35 cent school property inherited by nine heirs after the father’s death. Two powers of attorney (one unregistered in 2002, one registered) were executed in favour of different heirs. An agreement of sale for the entire property was entered in 2007 with extensions in 2008, 2010 and 2011. A 2012 newspaper notice purported to revoke the unregistered power of attorney; a 30 April 2013 affidavit ratified it and expressed no-objection. Suit filed in 2013 was dismissed on limitation and non-readiness; those findings were overturned. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Overrules | High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in R.F.A. No. 267 of 2016 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- A defendant’s affidavit ratifying an earlier unregistered power of attorney and its extensions constitutes an admission that resets the limitation period for a specific performance suit.
- Limitation begins to run from the date of the ratifying affidavit (date of final refusal), not from earlier extensions or initial breach.
- Readiness and willingness for specific performance can be demonstrated by an unchallenged ratification affidavit.
- Offers and mediation efforts during pendency do not affect the core principle that ratification fixes limitation and confirms consent.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The affidavit dated 30 April 2013 ratified and reaffirmed the unregistered power of attorney and all acts done thereunder, including sale negotiations and extensions.
- Limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act begins on the date of final refusal to perform, which here was the date of the ratifying affidavit.
- The suit filed within three years of that date was therefore timely.
- The affidavit also constituted an admission of readiness and willingness to transfer the 1/11th share.
- Both trial Court and High Court erred in holding non-readiness and time-bar; the Supreme Court set aside their orders and granted specific performance with interest.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The ratifying affidavit (Exh. A5) binds the defendant and confirms her consent.
- Limitation begins only after the affidavit (30 April 2013), making the suit timely.
- Readiness and willingness are established through payment of balance consideration and unchallenged admissions.
Respondent
- The unregistered power of attorney was revoked by a later registered instrument in 2002, so earlier acts are void.
- The affidavit was executed only to maintain minimum land requirements for the school, not to transfer the share.
- The suit was filed beyond three years from breach (2008), so it is time-barred.
Factual Background
After the death of the original owner, nine heirs inherited a three-acre 35 cent property with a school. An unregistered power of attorney in 2002 and later a registered one were executed in favour of different heirs. In May 2007 an agreement for sale was executed for ₹2.7 crore with three subsequent extensions. A 2012 notice purported to revoke the unregistered power of attorney; a 2013 affidavit ratified it and consented to transfer. The purchaser filed for specific performance in 2013; trial and High Court dismissed the suit on limitation and readiness grounds.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 54, Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963: three-year period for enforcement of contracts for sale of immovable property, triggered by breach or refusal.
- Sections of the Specific Relief Act, 1963: requisites for specific performance include readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
- Principle of ratification at common law: a principal’s subsequent affirmation of unauthorized acts binds the principal and validates past acts.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms established principles on ratification, limitation commencement, and readiness for specific performance.