VASANTI A NAIK, J.

The first appeal is ADMITTED and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this first appeal, the appellant-plaintiff challenges the judgment of the trial Court, dated 14.12.2015 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant for a decree of specific performance of contract.

3. Few facts giving rise to the first appeal are stated thus:

The appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') and the respondent no.1original defendant entered into an agreement, dated 16.05.2010, whereby the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.22,51,000/per acre. It is the case of the plaintiff that a sum of Rs.51,000/was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant towards earnest amount. As per one of the terms of the agreement, since the suit land was reserved for stadium and some other public purpose, the plaintiff was responsible for ensuring that the land is dereserved. The agreement further recited that within two years from the release of the land from reservation, the remaining consideration would be paid by the plaintiff as a sum of Rs.51,000/was paid towards the earnest money. The parties agreed that the agreement would be binding on the plaintiff and the defendant as also their legal heirs. It is pleaded by the plaintiff in the suit filed by her for specific performance of contract that after the execution of the agreement, dated 16.05.2010, the plaintiff took steps for the dereservation of the land. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that since the defendant did not cooperate with the plaintiff after 02.08.2010 for dereservation of the land, the husband of the plaintiff requested the defendant to execute a deed of power of attorney in his favour so that the process for dereservation could be expedited. The plaintiff has pleaded that due to the non-cooperation from the defendant, the clearance from the Town Planning Department for dereservation could not be obtained. According to the plaintiff, the husband of the plaintiff then became aware that for the execution and registration of the saledeed, it would not be necessary to get the land is dereserved and hence the plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant dated 12.12.2012 calling upon him to communicate about the date of execution and registration of the saledeed. The defendant sent a reply to the plaintiff, dated 24.01.2013, that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement. The defendant threatened the plaintiff that the agreement, dated 16.05.2010, could be cancelled. The plaintiff served a notice on the defendant, dated 30.01.2013 by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due and requested him to communicate the date, time and place for the execution and registration of the saledeed. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract by paying the balance consideration amount of Rs.2,32,60,912/towards the execution of the saledeed. It is pleaded that the plaintiff's husband had time and again contacted the defendant for fixing the date for the registration of the saledeed, however the defendant failed to perform his part of the contract. It is pleaded that the plaintiff again served a legal notice on the defendant, dated 11.03.2013 asking the defendant to inform the plaintiff a suitable date for execution and registration of the saledeed. According to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, a decree for specific performance of contract could be passed in favour of the plaintiff. Some other ancillary prayers were also made in the suit.

4. The defendant filed the written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant denied that an agreement of sale was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is pleaded that an agreement of sale was never executed and the agreement dated 16.05.2010 clearly recites that after the