The central legal point established in the judgment is the essentiality of averring the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract, as required by S.16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, for sustaining an action for specific performance.

1. The appellant-plaintiff sued for enforcement of Ext. P1, an agreement he entered into with the defendants in this case whereby the defendants agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 225/-. The plaintiff paid in advance an amount of Rs. 125/-, and the contract was to be performed within one year from the date of the agreement Since there was no move on the part of the defendants to perform their part of the contract the plaintiff issued Ext. P4 notice, which was addressed only to the 1st defendant though in the body of the notice all the three defendants were specifically named. Ext. P4 was returned with the endorsement that the addressee refused to accept it. The suit was laid for specifically enforcing the agreement for conveyance. The defendants resisted the action on various grounds, most of which, if not all, were false. The trial court decreed the suit, but on appeal by the defendants the lower appellate court took the view that there cannot be a decree for specific performance in as much as the plaint does not contain the necessary averments as laid down in S.16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act. The plaintiff was, therefore, awarded a decree only to realise the advance paid with interest thereon.

2. The short question for decision is whether the relief sought for with respect to specific performance should fail for want of proper pleadings in this case. The position at law is fairly clear. S.16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is extracted below:

"16. Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person

(c) who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.

Explanation. For the purposes of clause (c),

(i) where a contract involved the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court.

(ii) the plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction."

In Ouseph Varghese v. Joseph Aley and Ors. (1969-2 SCWR. 347) the Supreme Court held as follows:

"He must farther plead that he has been and is still ready and willing to specifically perform his part of the agreement. In the absence of such an allegation the suit is not maintainable. In the present case the plaintiff did not plead either in the plaint or at any subsequent stage that be was ready and willing to perform the agreement pleaded in the written statement of the defendant. 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." (See the headnote)

I was taken through the plaint in this case. Para.1 recites as to bow the defendants obtained the property. Para.2 mentions the factum of the execution of Ext. P1 as also its contents. Para.4 avers that the defendants have not performed their part of the contract and that they are trying to sell the property to third parties. Para.5 avers that the plaintiff demanded the defendants to sell the property through mediators as well as by registered notice dated 24-6-1966 and that the defendants have not acceded thereto. Para.6 sets out the cause of action. These are the only averments in the plaint to sustain the prayer for specific performance.

3. I may, as canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant, put a very liberal interpretation on the plaint. But I find that any amount of liberal approach on my part cannot supply the inherent lacuna in the plaint. It is not possible to hold in view of S.16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act as also by the dictum laid down by a Supreme Court in the above mentioned decision that a pleading in the plaint to the effort that the plaintif