Legal Review and Analysis of Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji vs Sakeena Beevi 2026 INSC 35
I. Basic Information & Synopsis
Case Title: Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji vs. Sakeena Beevi
Citation: 2026 INSC 35
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
Bench Type: Division Bench (Two-Judge Bench)
Date of Judgment: January 07, 2026
Synopsis & Basic Concept: This Supreme Court judgment centers on a specific performance suit concerning the sale of a share in a property that houses a school. The core legal issues involve ratification of an unregistered power of attorney, the computation of limitation periods under the Limitation Act, and the requirement of readiness and willingness under the Specific Relief Act. The Court, emphasizing factual rectitude and equitable considerations, reversed concurrent findings of the lower courts to grant specific performance, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements for school infrastructure.
1. Case Identification & Bench Details
Case Title: Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji vs. Sakeena Beevi
Citation: 2026 INSC 35
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Civil Appeal No(s).: 3894 of 2022 & 3895 of 2022
Coram:
Justice Vikram Nath
Justice Sandeep Mehta
Bench Type: Division Bench (Two-Judge Bench)
Date of Judgment: January 07, 2026
2. Legal Framework & Statutory Provisions
The judgment interprets and applies the following key statutory enactments:
Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Section 16(c)): Mandates that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must aver and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.
Limitation Act, 1963 (Article 54 of the Schedule): Prescribes a three-year limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance. The period begins from the date fixed for performance or, if no date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.
Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Sections 182, 201, 202): Governs the law of agency, including the creation, ratification, and revocation of a power of attorney.
Kerala Education Rules, 1959 / 2005 (Rule 5A, Chapter 3): Mandates a minimum land area of three acres for operating a higher secondary school.
Key Precedents Referenced (Implicitly)
While the judgment does not cite specific case law, it operates within the well-established jurisprudential framework governing specific performance, limitation, and agency, as reiterated in numerous Supreme Court decisions.
3. Relevant Facts of the Case
Property and Succession: The suit property (approx. 3.35 acres) in Survey No. 116/7, upon which the Aleemul Islam Higher Secondary School stood, devolved upon nine legal heirs of the late Seethi Thangal, including the respondent, Sakeena Beevi.
Power of Attorney (PoA): All nine heirs executed an unregistered PoA (Exh. A4) in favor of the eldest brother, Muhammad Rafi Thangal, on 03.09.2002. The respondent later executed a separate registered PoA (Exh. B1) in favor of her son, Rasheeq Ahmed, on 04.09.2002.
Agreement to Sell: On 14.05.2007, Muhammad Rafi Thangal, acting under Exh. A4, executed an Agreement to Sell (Exh. A1) with the appellant for ₹2.7 crores, receiving an advance of ₹25 lakhs. The agreement’s execution date was extended three times (2008, 2010, 2011).
Revocation & Ratification: In November 2012, the respondent published a notice revoking Exh. A4. However, crucially, on 30.04.2013, she executed an affidavit (Exh. A5) ratifying all acts done under Exh. A4 and expressing "no objection" to the transfer of the property and school management to the appellant.
Partial Sale & Suit: Eight co-shares sold their combined 10/11th share to the appellant on 08.05.2013. The respondent refused to execute the sale deed for her 1/11th share, leading the appellant to file a specific performance suit (O.S. No. 862 of 2013).
Lower Court Holdings: The Trial Court and High Court dismissed the suit, primarily on grounds of limitation and the appellant's alleged lack of readiness and willingness.
4. Issues Before the Supreme Court
Primary Issues in C.A. No. 3894/2022:
Whether the respondent's affidavit (Exh. A5) dated 30.04.2013 constituted a valid ratification of the acts of the power of attorney holder (Muhammad Rafi Thangal)?
Whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act?
Whether the appellant had proved his continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract?Ancillary Issue in C.A. No. 3895/2022:
Whether the interim arrangement made by the High Court, vesting school management with the District Education Officer (DEO), required continuation after the decision in the main appeal?
5. Ratio Decidendi & Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court allowed both appeals, granting specific performance. The core legal reasoning is:
Ratification is Conclusive: The respondent’s affidavit (Exh. A5) was an unequivocal, unrebutted admission (she did not enter the witness box) that ratified all acts of the PoA holder, Muhammad Rafi Thangal, including the execution and extensions of the agreement. This ratification relates back to the original act, validating the PoA holder's authority.
Limitation Commences from Affidavit Date: The cause of action for limitation was re-fixed to 30.04.2013 (the date of Exh. A5). By this affidavit, the respondent reaffirmed her consent. Her refusal crystallized only thereafter. Therefore, the suit filed in 2013 was within the three-year limitation period.
Readiness and Willingness Proven: The appellant demonstrated readiness by: (a) obtaining extensions with the knowledge/participation of the respondent’s family; (b) paying the substantial sale consideration to eight co-shares; and (c) offering a generous settlement (₹75 lakhs) during Supreme Court proceedings. His conduct was consistent.
Equity and Statutory Compliance: The Kerala Education Rules necessitated a minimum of 3 acres for the school. Denying specific performance of the 1/11th share would reduce the land below this threshold, jeopardizing the school's operation and serving a public interest. Equity favored enforcing the contract.
Interim Arrangement Vacated: Since specific performance was granted, giving the appellant full ownership of the 3-acre plot, the interim arrangement for management by the DEO was set aside as otiose.
6. Legal Principles Established & Reinforced
This judgment clarifies and solidifies several legal doctrines:
Doctrine of Ratification in Agency: A principal’s subsequent express ratification of an agent’s act, especially when not denied on oath, validates the act ab initio and binds the principal. Registration of a later PoA does not automatically revoke a prior unregistered PoA when acts under the prior PoA are later ratified.
Computation of Limitation in Specific Performance: The starting point of limitation under Article 54 is a question of fact. A subsequent affirmative act or acknowledgment by the defendant that renews consent can re-commence the limitation period from that later date.
Readiness and Willingness – A Pragmatic Test: The court adopted a substance-over-form approach. Readiness is not merely financial ability but a conduct-based assessment of the plaintiff’s intent and actions throughout the transaction.
Specific Performance as a Rule in Land Contracts: For contracts concerning unique property (especially land with statutory use conditions), specific performance is a normal and not an exceptional remedy. Courts will consider the practical consequences of non-enforcement, including third-party or public interest impacts.
7. Judicial Examination & Analytical Approach
The Supreme Court’s analysis was methodical and evidence-centric:
Step 1 – Scrutiny of Critical Document (Exh. A5): The Court gave primacy to the uncontested affidavit, interpreting its plain language to find clear ratification and consent.
Step 2 – Reconstructing the Timeline for Limitation: The Court juxtaposed the 2012 revocation notice with the 2013 ratification affidavit to conclude that the respondent’s final refusal occurred only post-April 2013.
Step 3 – Assessing Conduct for Readiness: The Court looked at the totality of circumstances—extensions, partial sale completion, settlement offers—rather than isolating individual moments of delay.
Step 4 – Balancing Equity and Law: The Court explicitly weighed the hardship to the appellant (loss of school viability) against the respondent’s conduct (opportunistic refusal after ratification) to conclude that equity demanded enforcement.
Step 5 – Integrating Statutory Mandate: The Kerala Education Rules were not merely a factual detail but a compelling factor that justified the grant of specific performance to prevent a statutory violation.
8. Critical Analysis & Final Outcome
Strengths of the Judgment:
Pro-Plaintiff yet Principled: The judgment protects a bona fide purchaser who had partially performed and relied on ratified agreements, discouraging sellers from opportunistic breaches.
Clarity on Ratification: It provides practical guidance: a clear, written ratification can cure antecedent defects in an agent’s authority.
Holistic Interpretation of Limitation: It prevents defendants from taking advantage of their own contradictory conduct (ratifying then pleading limitation) by dynamically determining the starting point of refusal.
Potential Considerations
Fact-Intensive Precedent: The heavy reliance on the unique affidavit (Exh. A5) may limit the judgment’s direct applicability to cases without such a clear ratification document.
Burden on Defendants to Testify: The Court drew an adverse inference from the respondent not entering the witness box, reinforcing the principle that parties must personally deny their own admitted documents.
Final Outcome
In C.A. No. 3894/2022: The appeals were allowed. The impugned judgments of the High Court and Trial Court were set aside. Specific performance was decreed. The Trial Court was directed to determine the balance sale consideration for the 1/11th share with 9% simple interest from the due date. Upon deposit, a sale deed is to be executed.
In C.A. No. 3895/2022: The appeal was allowed. The High Court's interim order vesting management with the DEO was set aside as infructuous, given the decree of specific performance.
9. Multiple Choice Questions
1. Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, what is the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance of a contract?
A) One year from the date of breach
B) Three years from the date fixed for performance or notice of refusal
C) Twelve years from the date of agreement
D) No limitation period applies
2. Which provision of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, mandates that a plaintiff must prove continuous "readiness and willingness" to perform his part of the contract?
A) Section 10
B) Section 16(c)
C) Section 20
D) Section 34
3. According to the Supreme Court's ruling, what was the legal effect of the respondent's affidavit (Exh. A5) dated 30.04.2013?
A) It was a sham document with no legal value.
B) It constituted a valid ratification of the power of attorney holder's acts, relating back to the original agreement.
C) It merely expressed a future intention but did not alter existing legal rights.
D) It automatically revoked the earlier registered power of attorney.
5. The Supreme Court considered the minimum land requirement under the Kerala Education Rules as a relevant factor because?
A) It determined the market value of the property.
B) It was a binding condition in the agreement of sale.
C) Denying specific performance would have made the school non-compliant with the law, affecting public interest.
D) It proved the respondent's title to the property.
Blog Posts
