The appellant herein filed O.S.No.72 of 2004 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet, against the respondents, for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 03.04.2001. It was pleaded that the respondents approached the appellant, with a proposal to sell an extent of Ac.1.00 of agricultural land, for a consideration of Rs.55,860/-, and on 03.04.2001, an agreement of sale (Ex.A.1) was executed, by advancing a sum of Rs.51,400/-. According to him, though the balance of consideration of Rs.4,400/- was to be paid by the end of April, 2001 and the sale deed was to be executed, the respondents did not evince any interest, inspite of repeated demands. It is stated that left with no alternative, the appellant got issued a notice, dated 26.03.2004 (Ex.A.5), and thereafter, the suit was filed.

The respondents filed a written statement, opposing the suit. Their case is that they have approached the appellant for financial assistance and taking advantage of the same, he brought into existence Ex.A.1. They have raised the plea that even otherwise, the appellant was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

The trial Court decreed the suit, through its judgment, dated 30.11.2007. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed A.S.No.57 of 2010 in the Court of the XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet. Through its judgment, dated 20.07.2011, the lower appellate Court modified the decree to be the one for refund of the amount covered by Ex.A.1 with interest at 6% per annum. Hence, this Second Appeal.

Heard Sri Charan Telaprolu, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

The suit was filed for the relief of specific performance, and on the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of agreement of sale dated 03.04.2001?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract, as prayed for?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the alternative relief of earnest money of Rs.69,904/- with subsequent interest at 12% p.a.?

4) To what relief?

On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and no documents were filed.

On the suit being decreed, the respondents filed A.S.No.57 of 2010 and the lower appellate Court framed the following points for consideration:

1) Whether Ex.A.1 agreement of sale dated 03.04.2001 is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

2) Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of contract dated 03.04.2001?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific performance as prayed for or whether the plaintiff is entitled to alternative relief of refund of the amount as prayed for?

4) To what relief?

The only ground, on which the lower appellate court modified the decree of the trial Court, was that the appellant failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Arguments are advanced in relation thereto. Therefore, it needs to be seen as to whether the appellant proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract.

One of the important aspects to be pleaded and proved by a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. This is a mandate under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Apart from that, the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 also prescribes the standard forms incorporating such clauses. It is no doubt true that the appellant has incorporated the plea to the effect that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, and equally, it is true that the respondents have denied that contention. The burden squarely rests upon the appellant to prove that fact.

The readiness and willingness on the part of a plaintiff in a suit of this natu