An averment of readiness and willingness to perform a contract, as required by Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, can be made in substance, and need not follow any particular form or language.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the 6th Additional District Judge. Saharanpur dt. May 4, 1978.

( 2 ) THE allegations of the plaintiff are that on Aug. 25, 1971 the defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement with him in writing for transfer by sale of the land specified at the foot of the plaint for a consideration of Rupees 12,000/- only. Of this a sum of Rupees 6,000/- was paid by the petitioner as earnest money to the defendant No. 1 on the date when the agreement was entered into and the balance was to be paid upon the deed of sale being registered. It was stipulated also that the sale had to be executed within Aug. 24, 1977 (sic ). The plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On Mar. 1, 1972 he also gave a notice under registered cover to the defendant No. 1 asking him to come over to the office of the sub-Registrar, Deoband on Mar. 9, 1972 to execute the sale on receipt of the balance of the sale consideration. The defendant No. 1, however, did not turn up. The suit was instituted thereafter on Mar. 13, 1972 by the plaintiff claiming relief of specific performance of the said agreement. During the pendency of the suit before the trial court, the defendant No. 1 executed a deed of sale in favour of the defendant No. 2 in respect of this land on Dec. 13. 1973. The plaint was thereupon amended by the plaintiff by application dated Feb. 16, 1974. The relief claimed was modified. The defendant No. 2 was also required to join in the execution of the deed of sale in plaintiffs favour and in the alternative claim was made for refund of the sum of Rs. 6,000/ -.

( 3 ) IN defence, it was pleaded that there had been no agreement entered into by the defendant No. 1 with the plaintiff on August 25, 1971. On January 10, 1971, it was asserted, the defendant No. 1 had agreed instead to sell this land to the defendant No. 2 for consideration of Rs. 20,000/- of which Rs. 7,000/- were received on that date as earnest. Upon receipt of the balance amount he executed the deed of sale in favour of the defendant No. 2 on Dec. 13, 1973. The defendant No. 2 moreover, claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and it was also asserted that the plaintiff has not been ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

( 4 ) THE suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge on Aug. 11. 1977. It was found that the defendant No. 1 had executed the agreement dated 25th Aug. 1971 in plaintiffs favour and that there had been no agreement entered into on Jan. 10, 1971 as asserted by the defendants. Further, it was held that the plaintiff had advanced Rs. 6,000/- to the defendant No. 1 as earnest and that the defendant No. 2 could not claim to be a bona fide purchaser without notice. The trial court however, erred inasmuch as it directed the defendant No. 1 alone to execute the sate in favour of the plaintiff. In the result there were three separate appeals filed against the judgment and decree by the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2 respectively. The appeals were decided under a common judgment on May 4, 1978 by the learned Additional District Judge. The finding of the trial court with respect to the due execution of the agreement dated Aug. 25. 1971 was upheld. It was affirmed that no agreement was made on 10th Jan. 1971. The suit, it was observed, did not fail upon the plea that the plaintiff had not been ready and willing to perform his part of agreement. The defendant No. 2 was found to have had notice of the agreement dated 25th Aug. 1971. The appeals filed by the defendants were consequently dismissed. In the plaintiffs appeal it was directed that the defendant No. 2 shall also join in executing the sale in favour of the plaintiff.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED the defendant No. 2 preferred this second appeal,

( 6 ) THE sole question raised for decision in this appeal is whether the plaint contains an averment to the effect that the plaintiff conti