The plaintiff must aver and prove readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract, as per S.16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to maintain a suit for specific performance.

1. By Ex. P1 dated 13-4-1951 the defendant entered into an agreement with the mother of the plaintiffs for reconveying a property sold by the plaintiff's mother to the defendant by a previous deed, Ex. D2. Such sale under Ex. D2 was for Rs.750/-, and at the time when the defendant took the sale he was a mortgagee of the property having obtained such mortgage on 13-7-1122 for Rs. 500/-. There was an earlier mortgage in respect of the property of the year 1092 and the defendant on the strength of the mortgage dated 13 71122 taken by him, had filed a suit for redemption, O.S. No. 507 of 1123 of the Alleppey Munsiff's Court. It was during the pendency of that suit for redemption that he, the mortgagee obtained sale of the equity of redemption also from the mother of the plaintiffs under Ex. D2. In the agreement for re-conveyance executed on 13 41951 the defendant agreed that, within a month of his getting delivery of the property pursuant to the decree in O.S. 507 of 1123, he would convey the property to plaintiff's mother, the consideration for such conveyance being the mortgage amount of Rs. 500/- plus interest thereon from the date of the mortgage (there is a dispute as to the interpretation in regard to this term), the amount advanced in addition to the mortgage amount for taking Ex. D2 sale deed and interest thereon from the date of Ex. P1 and further, the costs incurred by the defendant as seen from his account. There was a further clause in Ex. P1 that in the event of default to act according to the terms of the karar the karar would stand cancelled. This suit has arisen at the instance of plaintiffs, who on the death of their mother, claimed specific performance of the agreement to reconvey, contained in Ex. P1. The property was delivered over to the defendant in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 507 of 1123 on 8 41960 and therefore under the terms of Ex. P1 he was bound to execute a sale deed on demand by the plaintiffs on or before 8 51960. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in spite of demand defendant refused to execute the sale deed. A notice was issued to him. Still he did not agree to execute the sale deed and therefore they had to come to court with a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell contained in Ex. PL It may be mentioned that on the date of Ex. P1 a counterpart of Ex.PI was executed by the plaintiff's mother in favour of the defendant with terms same as those contained in Ex. P1I. In the plaint the plaintiffs have calculated the amount payable under the terms of Ex. P1 as Rs. 1285. In arriving at this figure they had taken the interest payable on the mortgage amount of Rs. 5000/- as limited to a moiety the interest payable on the amount of Rs. 250 paid for taking Ex. D2 in addition to the mortgage amount also as limited to a moiety and the expenses of litigation as Rs. 160/. The defendant in the written statement set up the contention that Ex. P1 has no legal force, that it was not intented to operate and that it did not come into operation. They also contended that, in the event of specific performance being decreed, the amount payable was Rs. 5855/- and an account for this amount so claimed was also shown in the written statement. On these pleadings the parties went to trial. The trial court decreed the suit in terms of the plaint, holding that Ex. P1 karar was valid, that it was supported by consideration, that it was enforceable, that the sale deed dated 12-4-1951 was not intended by the parties to be treated as an outright deed of sale, that the amount due, to be paid under the terms of Ex. P1, was Rs. 1285/- and that had been offered & therefore plaintiff was entitled to a decree. The lower appellant court in the appeal filed by the defendant, held that Ex. D2 sale had come into effect, that plaintiffs had not proved that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, the proof of which alone will entitle the plaintiffs in a suit for specific perfor