In a suit for specific performance of a contract, the plaintiff must aver and prove that he was and is ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him.

MISHRA, J.

1. A suit by the plaintiffs-appellants for a specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property to the extent indicated in the plaint in favour of the plaintiffs has failed in the trial court. The agreement dated 10.8.1980, contemplated inter alia that the defendant had agreed to sell to the first-plaintiff about 38 grounds of land mentioned in ‘A’ schedule to the plaint to develop the area into a housing colony to enable persons with fixed incomes to construct houses thereon consistent with the policy of the Government to encourage construction of small and medium sized houses. The purchaser-first plaintiff had agreed to purchase the property from the defendant at a consolidated price to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 8,500/- per ground in so far as the bare land was concerned and also additional price for the superstructure thereon. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant made certain applications to the authorities for exemption from the operation of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act (Act 24 of 1978) and that the first plaintiff was informed by the defendant on or about 20.3.1981 that defendants application for exemption from the operation of the abovesaid Act was rejected. The first plaintiff then took such actions to see that suitable orders under the Act were passed by the competent authority in accordance with the terms of the agreement dated 10.8.1980. The defendant, in the meanwhile took a further advance of Rs. 5,000/-on 2.3.1982 and thereafter informed the first plaintiff that sometime earlier in. April, 1982, she had received a copy of the notice under S. (4) of the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978, dated 31.3.1982 permitting the defendant to retain the properties comprised in schedule B to the plaint. The first plaintiff then requested the defendant to appoint a competent engineer or architect to value the superstructure. The defendant at that stage replied that the same may wait till she filed an appeal against the order of the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. In the meanwhile, however, the first plaintiff nominated the second and the third-plaintiffs to purchase portions of the property that could be sold by the defendant in pursuance of the agreement dated 10.8.1980. The plaintiffs stated in the plaint that the first plaintiff had all along been ready and willing to perform her obligation under the agreement and, in fact, had discharged her part in relation to the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, and that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to discharge all obligations under the terms of the agreement, that they had paid almost the entire value of 3894 sq. m. of land, which the defendant had been permitted to retain by the competent authority at Rs. 1,48,427/- on the basis of Rs. 8,500/- per ground, the price agreed upon under the agreement. The plaintiffs also estimated the value of the superstructure at Rs. 50,000/- and stated that they were prepared to pay these amounts unconditionally, less a sum of Rs. 10,000/- received by the defendant or such other sum as the Court fixed.

2. The defendant resisted the suit saying that she was the sole owner of the property mentioned in Schedules A to D to the plaint, measuring about 40 grounds, that she knew that since the passing of Act 24 of 1978 the property was subject to a ceiling and satisfactory solution was necessary. She entrusted the matter to one Rangaswamy, an advocate, who introduced another person A.K. Shanmugha Sundaram, the husband of the first plaintiff. Shanmugha Sundaram represented to the defendant that he, being a politician, was having considerable influence in the corridors of power and stated that he intended to buy the entire property of the defendant to develop the area into a housing colony to enable persons with fixed incomes to construct houses thereon consistent with the policy of the Government to encourage constructions of small and medium sized houses. Both M