In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must diligently comply with the strict statutory requirements, including pleading and proving readiness and willingness to perform the agreement, as well as adhering to the mandatory provisions of the Specific Relief Act and the Civil Procedure Code.

1. The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is the appellant. The suit was dismissed by both the courts. The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant and himself entered into Ext. Al agreement dated 29-8-1972 whereby the first defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff a property having an extent of 87 cents for a total consideration of Rs. 2,700/. The document of sale was to be executed and registered on or before 1-9-1972. Since the first defendant did not comply with the terms of Ext. A1, Ext. A5 lawyer's notice was caused to be sent calling upon the first defendant to execute the document of sale. The first defendant's lawyer replied to Ext. A5 on 12-9-1972 (Ext. A4) stating that the first defendant would execute the document only if certain conditions which had been orally agreed upon between the parties were duly incorporated in the document of sale.

2. The plaintiff instituted the suit on 15-6-1973 stating that on 1-9-1972 he went to the office of the Sub Registrar with the sale price of Rs. 2,700/- in cash and waited for the first defendant to arrive and execute the document. Since the defendant did not arrive till 4 O'Clock, he went to the Indian Overseas Bank, Perumbavoor and deposited the said sum of Rs. 2,700/- as indicated in the pass-book Ext. A3. He has further stated in the plaint that he is prepared to deposit the sale price of Rs. 2,700/- into the court on obtaining the challan from the court for that purpose. In their written statement, various contentions have been raised by the defendants including the one relating to the unsustainability of the plaint as filed.

3. Both the courts found that the plaint averments did not satisfy the requirements of the law to obtain a decree for specific performance. The courts held that the plaintiff did not plead in accordance with the mandatory provisions of S.16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The suit was accordingly dismissed.

4. Shri. P. Kochapappu Achan appearing for the appellant submits that the pleadings are in sufficient compliance with the relevant statutory provisions relating to specific performance. In support of this contention, he relies upon the decision of this Court in Mani Amma And Others v. Kololichalil Choyi, 1985 KLJ 246.

5. I have been taken through the plaint averments carefully and I am not satisfied that they are in accordance with the requirements of the law. In Ouseph Varghese v. Joseph Aley and Others (1969) 2 SCC 539, the Supreme Court has had occasion to consider the strict requirements of Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix A to the first Schedule of the CPC. This is what the Court stated:

"A suit for specific performance has to conform to the requirements prescribed in Forms 47 and 48 of the 1st Schedule in the Civil Procedure Code. In a suit for specific performance it is incumbent on the plaintiff not only to set out agreement on the basis of which he sues in all its details, he must go further and plead that he has applied to the defendant specifically to perform the agreement pleaded by him but the defendant has not done so. He must further plead that he has been and is still ready and willing to specifically perform his part of the agreement. Neither in the plaint nor at any subsequent stage of the suit the plaintiff has taken those pleas. As observed by this Court in Pt. Prem Bai v. The DLF. Housing and Construction (Private) (Ltd.) and another (Civil Appeal No. 37/66 decided on 4-4-1968), that it is well settled that in a suit for specific performance the plaintiff should allege that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and in the absence of such an allegation the suit is not maintainable."

Referring to that decision and the principle embodied in S.16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, Namboodiripad, J. in Prabhakaran v. Bhavani, 1974 KLT 115 observed that a suit which fell short of the statutory requirements of S.16(c) had necessarily to fail. In so stating; the learned judge followed the prin