The amendment of section 16 of the Specific Relief Act in 1963 removed the requirement that the plaintiff must plead that he had tendered the amount to the defendant and called upon him to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff is now only required to plead and prove that he had been and was willing to perform his part of the contract.

A.L.Bahri, J.

1. This Regular second Appeal has been filed by Jaswant Singh, a defendant, against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, dated April 30, 1984, whereby the judgment and decree dated December 17,1981, passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class was reversed and the suit filed by Karam Singh for specific performance of the contract was decreed. Karara Singh claimed specific performance of an agreement dated December 8, ,977, vide which he had agreed to purchase the land in dispute for a sum of Rs. 24,000/-. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was paid as earnest money The next instalment was to be paid of Rs. 12,000/- and another instalment of Rs. 11,000/- thereafter. The amount was offered and the defendants were called upon to sell the land. The agreement was entered into by attorney of the defendants, who refused to accept the money on the pretext that he would do so after informing the defendants Karam Singh also claimed to be in possession of the suit land as a tenant even prior to the execution of the alleged agreement. He further alleged that the suit land was sold to Jaswant Singh defendant for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- subsequently, who had prior knowledge of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff.

2. The suit, was contested by the defendants. Jaswant Singh claimed to be bonafide purchaser of the land in dispute, having no knowledge of the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff.

3. Another suit was filed by Jaswant Singh that he was a tenant in the land in dispute under the original owner since Khariff 1976 and he purchased the land on August (sic)0,1979. Karam Singh had illegally dispossessed him. Previously he filed a suit for injunction against Karam Singh and others, not to interfere in his possession. Since possession of Karam Singh was illegal, therefore, he (Jaswant Singh) had a right to recover the same.

4. Both these suits were tried together. The trial Court disposed of the same on December 17, 1981, dismissing both the suits. It was Karam Singh, who had filed an appeal in his suit, which was allowed by the lower appellate Court. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by Jaswant Singh-defendant in the suit filed by Karam Singh.

5. Shri H. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has argued that as provided under section 16(c)of the Specific Relief Act, it was required of Karam Singh plaintiff to plead in the plaint and then subsequently prove by producing evidence that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, not only on the relevant dates when under the contract he was to fulfil the conditions of the contract but he was also ready and willing to perform the same at the time of filing of the suit. Section 16 of the Act reads as under :-

"16. Personel bars to relief-Specific performance of a contract cannot be enformced in favour of a person :-

(a) who would not be entitled to recover compensation for its breach ; or

(b) who has become incapable of performing, or violates any essential term of, the contract that on his part remains to be performed, or acts in fraud of the contract, or wilfully acts at variance with, or in subversion of, the relation intended to be established by the Contract ; or

(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 involves 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."

Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision of this Court on the subject in Dhanna Singh and An