Man Kaur v Kartar Singh Sangha

Facts

In a suit for specific performance the purchaser's readiness and willingness was sought to be established through the evidence of a power-of-attorney holder rather than the purchaser personally, and the question was whether such evidence could prove the purchaser's state of mind, capacity and conduct.

Issues

• Whether the plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness irrespective of the defendant's default
• Whether a power-of-attorney holder without personal knowledge can give evidence of the plaintiff's readiness and willingness

Arguments

The plaintiff contended that readiness and willingness could be established through an attorney holder's testimony. The defendant contended that readiness and willingness relate to the plaintiff's own state of mind, capacity and conduct, which a third party without personal knowledge cannot prove.

Held

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff-purchaser must demonstrate readiness and willingness regardless of any default by the defendant-vendor. Readiness and willingness refer to the state of mind and conduct of the purchaser and to his capacity and preparedness, which are matters of personal knowledge. A power-of-attorney holder can depose only about acts done by him on behalf of the principal under the power, but cannot give evidence about the principal's own readiness and willingness if he has no personal knowledge of it; such matters must be proved by the party himself.

Ratio decidendi

A plaintiff must himself prove readiness and willingness, which concern his own state of mind, capacity and conduct; an attorney holder without personal knowledge cannot substitute for him on this issue, and the obligation persists despite the defendant's default.

Significance

The leading authority on proof of readiness and willingness and the limits of power-of-attorney evidence under the Evidence Act; widely applied (with Mohinder Kaur and Azhar Sultana clarifying when attorney or substitute testimony is or is not adequate).

Related