IMPORTANT POINT
Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act requires that not only there be a plea of readiness and willingness but has to be proved so but mere absence of plaintiff coming in witness box by itself may not be a factor to conclude that he was not ready and willing in a given case.

ORDER

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th August, 1992 passed by the High Court confirming the dismissal of the suit for specific performance.

3. The appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of a contract dated 10th August, 1980 for the sale of an immovable property in accordance with the terms of that contract. The defendants-respondents had agreed to sell to the appellant (first plaintiff) about 38 grounds of land mentioned in A Schedule to the plaint to develop the area into a housing colony. As per the agreement, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the property from the defendant at a consolidated price to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 8,500/- per ground for the bare land and an additional price to be fixed of the superstructure after getting its valuation from the competent engineer or architect as per the agreement. This agreement was, of course, subject to the permission to be granted to the defendant under Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act (Act 24 of 1978). An obligation was cast under the agreement on the plaintiff to obtain such permission. On the date of the aforesaid agreement Rs.5,000 was paid by the first plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant s application initially to the authorities for the declaration of the exemption from the operation of the aforesaid Act was rejected. However, later the plaintiff was informed by the defendant that a communication dated 31st March, 1982 has been received by the defendant that exemption for the part of the land has been granted under the said Act. Thereafter, the present suit was filed by the appellant for the specific performance of the said contract for executing a sale deed. This suit was contested as defendant denied that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On the contrary he did not perform his part of the obligation under the said contract. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellants, which is confirmed by the High Court. Aggrieved by that the present appeal has been preferred.

4. The only question raised before the High Court which it considered, to which we are called upon for consideration is, whether the appellants were always ready and willing to perform their part under the contract. The High Court came to the conclusion that willingness and readiness is no doubt pleaded but they led no evidence to prove it. Thus held, that the plaintiff is not entitled for the decree of specific performance. The submission by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the plaintiff was always willing and ready to perform his part under the contract but mere non-leading of any evidence is not sufficient to reject it. Inference of readiness and willingness could be drawn by the conduct of the plaintiff and the circumstances, in a particular case in other words to be gathered from the totality of circumstances.

5. For this, the appellants rely on two circumstances, one that immediately after the exemption was given by the Ceiling Authorities on the 31st March, 1982, the present suit was filed in April, 1982 and the other the tendering of further sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the defendant after execution of the agreement of sale. He also reiterates with reference to para 11 of the plaint which pleads that the appellant was and is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. So far these are being a plea that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract is there in the pleading. We have no hesitation to conclude, that this by itself is not sufficient to hold that the appellants were ready and willing in terms of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. This requires not only such plea but also proof of the same. Now examining first of the two circumstances, how could mere filing of this suit, after exemption was granted could be a circumstance about willingness or readiness of the plaintiff. This at the most