Not Every Plaintiff Must Prove Sale Agreement's Execution If Another Plaintiff Having Firsthand Knowledge Proves Execution : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that not every plaintiff must prove the execution of a sale agreement if another plaintiff with knowledge of the transaction proves the execution. The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra stated that a plaintiff's absence should not be viewed adversely, as testimony from another plaintiff present can substantively support the claims...
The Supreme Court observed that not every plaintiff must prove the execution of a sale agreement if another plaintiff with knowledge of the transaction proves the execution.
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra stated that a plaintiff's absence should not be viewed adversely, as testimony from another plaintiff present can substantively support the claims of absent plaintiffs.
“The plaintiffs' interests were represented by their Power of Attorney holders, namely Shri K.D. Maheshwari and Shri Pankaj Maheshwari. Shri K.D. Maheshwari is himself one of the purchasers and a plaintiff in his own suit. He appeared as PW-1 in all the suits, either as the plaintiff or as the Power of Attorney holder for the other plaintiffs. He had personal, firsthand knowledge of the execution of the Agreement to Sell, being directly involved in the transaction and present at the time of its execution. His detailed testimony provided substantial evidence supporting the plaintiffs' claims. Similarly, Shri Pankaj Maheshwari acted as the Power of Attorney holder for the plaintiff Bharat Kumar Lathi and also appeared as a witness. He had personal knowledge of the transaction and corroborated the execution of the Agreement to Sell and the payment of the consideration. Both Shri K.D. Maheshwari and Shri Pankaj Maheshwari were intimately connected with the transaction and were competent to testify about the facts in issue. Moreover, one of the plaintiffs did enter the witness box in his own suit, further reinforcing the plaintiffs' case. Unlike in Vidyadhar Vishnupant (supra), where the defendant deliberately avoided the witness box, here the plaintiffs ensured that competent and directly involved witnesses testified on their behalf.”, the judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath observed.
In this case, multiple plaintiffs entered into an agreement to purchase properties from Sushila Devi. After her death, her legal heirs (the defendants) objected, arguing that the agreement was unproven since one of the plaintiffs, the appellant did not testify.
The appellant countered that his absence should not lead to an adverse inference, as his power of attorney holder, who was also a plaintiff, had already testified to the agreement's execution.
The Court accepted the appellant's argument, dismissing the defendants' claim that a power of attorney holder cannot testify on matters within the principal's personal knowledge. The Court held that the power of attorney holder's presence at the agreement's execution provided sufficient proof, establishing the plaintiffs' case through credible witnesses with firsthand knowledge.
“The respondents have cited several other judgments to argue that the plaintiffs' failure to personally testify is detrimental to their case. In Janki Vashdeo (supra), this Court held that a power of attorney holder cannot depose on behalf of the principal regarding matters within the principal's personal knowledge. In Rajesh Kumar (supra), the Court reiterated that non-appearance of the plaintiff in the witness box can be fatal in specific performance suits. However, the circumstances in the present case are distinct as already discussed above. Therefore, the principles from the cited cases do not apply here, as the plaintiffs have adequately proved their case through competent witnesses with personal knowledge.”
The Court ultimately held in the appellant's favor, reversing the High Court's judgment and upholding the trial court's decree for specific performance.
It directed the defendants to execute the sale deed and declared subsequent sales void, reinforcing the appellants' right to specific performance of the original agreement.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal.
Appearance:
Mr. P.S. Patwalia and Mr. Rahul Sripat, Senior Advocates for the appellant.
Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mr. Sudhanshu Shashikumr Choudhari and Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Senior Advocates for respondents.
Mr. Shekhar Kumar, Advocate for the intervenor.
Case Title: SHYAM KUMAR INANI VERSUS VINOD AGRAWAL & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2845/2015
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 883