JUDGMENT :

Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.

1. Instant appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') against the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Dholpur in Civil Suit No. 53/91, whereby the suit for specific performance of contract filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit on 03.12.90 for specific performance of contract in which plaintiff mentioned that a written agreement to sell dated 24.08.87 was executed by the respondent-defendant (for short 'the defendant') in favour of the plaintiff for selling his agricultural land as mentioned in the agreement to sell and in para No. 1 of the suit. The plaintiff had paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant and remaining Rs.10,000/- was said to be paid upto 24.08.89. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but when cost of land was increased, so, defendant did not agree to execute the sale deed. So, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the contract.

3. Defendant filed a written statement and denied the execution of the agreement to sell with regard to the land in question in favour of the plaintiff and also denied to receive an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and also submitted that signature of the defendant on agreement to sell was obtained fraudulently. So, suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the defendant had executed an agreement to sell on 24.08.87 for selling his 1/3rd share in the suit property as mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint in lieu of sale consideration of Rs.1,10,000/- and received Rs.1,00,000/- as an advance at that time?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing from 24.08.87 to pay balance sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- to the dependent in order to get the sale deed registered in his favour?

(3) Relief?

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that learned court below had decided the issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. He also submits that the plaintiff had proved the execution of the agreement. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that learned court below wrongly decided the issue No. 2 regarding readiness and willingness in favour of the defendant. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that learned trial court while deciding the issue No. 2 observed that the plaintiff had not given any notice regarding readiness and willingness to fulfil the terms of the agreement to sell. So, learned trial court wrongly decided the issue No. 2 in favour of the defendant.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Ramakrishna Pillai & Anr. v. Muhammed Kunju & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos.1396- 1397/2002 decided on 20.02.2008; (2) Smt. Shyamali Chandra & Anr. v. Smt. Reba Adak & Ors. reported in 2019(2) Civil Court Cases 656 (Calcutta) (DB); (3) Faujmal v. Nathulal in S.B. Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 384/1959 decided on 27.11.1964 and (4) Fateh Singh v. Gopi in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 214/1963 decided on 08.04.1964.

7. Learned counsel for the defendant has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that learned trial court rightly decided the issue No. 2 in favour of the defendant because plaintiff did not show any readiness and willingness for executing the agreement to sell. It is necessary for the plaintiff to give a notice showing his readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration and thereby asking for getting the sale deed regist