Plaintiff not required to prove continuous readiness and willingness to pay the amount.

Srinivasan, J.

The appellants purchased the suit property from the respondent and his three minor sons represented by the respondent as their guardian on2. 1973 under Ex.B-1 for a sum of Rs.21,000, out of which a sum of Rs.13,200 was paid in cash. As regards the balance of Rs.7,800 the appellants agreed to discharge within a period of five years the loan due to Dharmapuri Co-operative Land Development Bank. On the same day, the appellants executed a document marked as Ex.A-1 agreeing to reconvey the property to the respondent, if the latter paid the entire amount of sale consideration within a period of five years therefrom.

.2. On 2. 1978, the respondent filed O.S. No.266 of 1978 on the file of Sub Court, Krishnagiri for a decree for specific performance. In the plaint it was alleged that the plaintiff was willing to deposit in court the sums due to the defendants. It was also alleged that the defendants had not discharged the loan due to the bank as agreed in the sale deed and the plaintiff had to repay only a sum of Rs.13,500. It was further alleged that the plaintiff had offered payment of dues to the defendants several times, but they were postponing the event by giving false excuses and on 2. 1978 refused to execute the deed of reconveyance.

3. The defendants in their written statement claimed to have discharged the loan due to the bank. It was contended that the plaintiff had come to court with a false case and he was never- ready and willing to perform his part of the contract during the period of five years and therefore the suit should be dismissed with compensatory costs.

4. The Subordinate Judge held that the defendants had discharged the debts recited in the sale deed, that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that he had come to court with a false case. On those findings, the suit was dismissed. On appeal by the plaintiff in A.S. No. 1243 of 1980 in this Court, the learned Judge held that the defendants had not discharged the debts within five years as agreed to by them. It was also found that the plaintiff’s case of having offered to the defendants to pay the dues and being ready and willing to deposit the entire amount due was true. It was also held that the plaintiff had not come with a false case but on the other hand the defendants had come forward with a false defence. Consequently, the appellate Judge reversed the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge and passed a decree for specific performance directing the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs.21,000 in court within two months from the receipt of records in the trial court.

5. The aggrieved defendants have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. It was brought to our notice by learned counsel for the plaintiff that he had deposited the entire amount in court as directed by the decree in time.

.6. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the conduct of the defendants is wholly immaterial and irrelevant. It is argued that the plaintiff had claimed in the plaint that a sum of Rs.13,500 was alone due to the defendants which would prove that he was not ready and willing to pay the entire amount due. It is further contended that the plaintiff put forward a new and false case in the evidence, that he had received only a sum of Rs. 11,500 at the time of sale and he was not therefore entitled to get the equitable relief of specific performance. On the other hand, the contentions of learned counsel for the respondent are as follows: The plaintiff is not guilty of coming to court with a false plea. His erroneous statement in the evidence that he received only a sum of Rs.11,500 in cash does not disentitle him to the relief. A suit for specific performance of reconveyance agreement stands on a different footing from a suit for enforcement of a contract for sale. For proving his readiness and willingness, he need not deposit the money in Court before suit. The fact that he deposited the entire amount