S. B. Sinha, J.

This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.87 (decree signed on 4.1.88), passed by Sri Jugal Kishore Prasad, 6th Addl. District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No. 29 of 1986, whereby and where under he has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 5.6.86 (decree signed on 13.6.86) passed by Sri Basudeo Sharan, 2nd Addl. Munsif, Daltonganj, in Title suit no. 46 of 1985.

2. This appeal raises a question with regard to the interpretation of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

3. The basic facts are not in dispute. Admittedly a deed of sale was executed on 13.1.82, by the plaintiff appellant in favor of the defendant-respondent, whereby and where under the appellant transferred the suit land being survery plot no. 364, appertaining to Khata no. 50, situate at village Sewai, P. S. Lesliganj, measuring 0.451/2 acres of lands for a total consideration of Rs. 2000/-. On the said date, the defendant-respondent entered into an agreement to reconvey the said property to the plaintiff, in the event the plaintiff pays back the consideration amount of Rs. 2000/- to the defendant by 13.1.1986. In terms of the sale deed dated 13.1.82, the defendants came in possession. The plaintiff asserted that he tendered the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2000/- to the defendant on several occasions, but he refused to execute the sale deed in the name of the plaintiff in terms of the said agreement for sale.

4. The defendant did not deny the agreement entered into for the sale (Illegible), but he alleged that he had made improvement worth Rs. 5000/- in respect of the suit land. The defendant further stated that the plaintiff had purchased some seeds from him on credit worth Rs. 3,200.35 paise and the said amount was also agreed by the plaintiff to be paid towards the consideration amount for the document of re-conveyance.

5. The defendant was all along ready and willing to re-convey the aforementioned property to the plaintiff, if he paid the total sum of Rs. 10,200.35 paise.

6. Upon the aforementioned pleadings of the parties, the learned trail court framed the following issues :

“1. Is the suit as framed maintainable ?

2. Has the plaintiff got cause of action for suit ?

3. What is the consideration amount of deed of agreement ?

4. Is the plaintiff entitled to re-convey of the land in his favour ?

5. To what other reliefs, is the plaintiff entitled ?”

7. The learned trail court in its judgment held that there was no de novo agreement by and between the plaintiff agreed to pay the costs of the development and also the costs of seeds, allegedly purchased by him from the defendant, at the time of execution of the aforementioned deed of sale.

8. The learned trail court further held that as the plaintiff has not pleaded in his plaint that he was all along ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as is required under section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, he was not entitled to a decree for specific performance of contract.

9. On appeal, the learned court of appeal below framed two question for consideration, in the following terms :

(i) What is consideration amount for execution of the deed of re-conveyance as agreed between the parties.

(ii) Whether the plaintiff, appellant is and always had been willing and ready to perform his part of the contract ?

10. The learned court of appeal below decided the aforementioned question no. (i) in favour of the plaintiff. The learned court of appeal below, however, decided the second question against the plaintiff holding therein that he failed to make necessary averment in his plaint, as a statutory requirement under section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, that he was all along been and still is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, The learned court of appeal below appears to have relied Upon a decision of this Court in Nandlal Sah vrs. Pawan Devi, 1979 B.L.J.R. 667, and Karnataka 109, A.I.R. 1986 Karnataka 109. (Wrong