A young widow, who is entitled to maintenance and is a party to a family settlement, can enforce the settlement through specific performance, even if she has not expressly pleaded readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract, if she is disabled from performing her obligations due to her lack of possession of the property.

( 1 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant. She laid the suit seeking specific performance of the Khararnama, Ex. A1 dt. 14-7-1972 and for possession of Ac. 3. 00 of the plaint schedule property and for mesne profits.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant had two sons viz. , the second defendant and her husband, late Syed China Janvalli alias Basha. Her husband and the second defendant purchased Ac. 7-01 cent of land under Ex. B-3. She was married in 1969 and her husband died on July 13, 1972 at Madras. His body was brought to their village Rachapudi in Addanki Taluk, Prakasam District. On that day i. e. 14-7-72 there was an agreement between the parties that Ac. 3. 00 of land would be given to her for her maintenance. Subsequently the second defendant resiled therefrom. In fact the defendants had nine acres of land in the village apart from a house and had also a house at Madras and were doing money lending and charcoal business. Thereby she pleads that the defendants are possessed of extensive property in which she is entitled to the share of her husband but she was satisfied with the three acres of land, as agreed to under Ex. A1. Thus she filed the suit for the above reliefs.

( 3 ) THE second defendant filed the written statement admitting his doing business at Madras, the death of his younger brother at Madras and the corpse being brought to Rachapudi and thereafter execution of document. But he pleads that he was completely exhausted and tired; that several people came there; they conspired and compelled him to sign the document. Therefore he was obliged to sign the document. He in the first instance denied the execution of the document Ex. A1 as such and therefore for the reasons stated therein, the document is without consideration and void. He admits the purchase of Ac. 7. 01 of land under Ex. B3 but he pleads that his brother did not contribute his share of consideration. On the other hand he pleads that the entire consideration was paid by him. He also further pleads that the plaintiff has been in possession of dry land in Patta No. 1467, and S. No. 164 of the village, which is worth about Rs. 6,000/ -. He also further pleads that she was given 25 sovereigns of gold. The suit was filed at the instigation of the enemies of the defendants due to his absence at the village.

( 4 ) THE trial Court framed as many as five issues and it found that the husband of the plaintiff died at Madras and his body was brought to the village Rachapudi by the 2nd defendant. It also found that Ex. A1 was executed, that it was scribed by P. W. 3 and attested by P. Ws. 4 to 6 and five others and it bears the signatures of the defendants, and that the attestors are disinterested witnesses. Ex. A1 is a true document. It was agreed between the parties to provide some sort of maintenance to the plaintiff, or give some property in lieu thereof. The plaintiff had half share in Ac. 7. 01 cents purchased under Ex. B3 since her husband is a co-owner and therefore it was stated : "it is true that the transaction has an outward garb of reasonableness. . . . . " It also held that the second defendant failed to establish that any threats were held out towards them and that they were compelled to execute Ex. A1 to avoid any dire consequences. But, however, the suit was dismissed on the ground that there was some sort of undue influence in bringing into existence Ex. A1 and therefore it was not executed out of free will. It also further held that since the plaintiff was not willing to perform her part of contract viz. , paying the funeral expenses and discharging the debts contracted from D. W. 3, the suit for specific performance cannot be granted. It was also held that the plaintiff has not expressly pleaded readiness and willingness on her part to perform her part of the contract as enjoined under S. 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) for short, "the Act", and therefore she is not entitled to th