A plaintiff in a suit for specific performance must aver and prove that he has performed or has throughout been prepared to do his part under the contract.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendants second appeal in a suit for specific performance of a contract of re-conveyance of two houses at Varanasi. The trial court dismissed the suit but the lower appellate court has decreed it on payment of Rs. 3000/- as the amount of price agreed to be paid, rs. 1800/- as interest thereon for five years and Rs. 30/- on account of unpaid house and water taxes total Rs. 4830/ -.

( 2 ) THE main question which arises in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs could be said to be ready and willing to perform their part of the contract within the meaning of Section 16 (c) of the specific Relief Act. 1963.

( 3 ) KALI Das, husband of the first plaintiff-respondent and father of plaintiff-respondents Nos. 2 to 5 sold that property in dispute to one Pera Lal on 15th May, 1957 reserving to himself the right to re-purchase the same. Kali Das was, however, unable to arrange for the necessary funds to re-purchase the property from Pera Lal within the time limited by the agreement with Pera Lal, rather, he seems to have been in need of more money. The property being obviously worth much more. Pera Lal and Kali Das sold it to the defendant-appellant Ganesh Prasad for Rs. 3000/-by a sale-deed dated 23rd October, 1962 and Ganesh Prasad, the defendant-appellant, agreed to recovery the property to Kali Das on payment Rs. 3000 with interest at the rate of 1% per mensem as also expenses on repairs and Municipal taxes and other expenses with interest thereon as well, at the rate of 1% per mensem within 5 years by a separate agreement also dated 23rd Oct. 1962. Both the sale-deed and the agreement for re-conveyance were presented for registration on 24th October, 1962 and duly registered in accordance with law. The certified copy of the agreement of re-conveyance is Ext. I, while the original sale deed in favour of the defendant-appellant is Ext. A-2. Kali Das also executed a rent note in favour of the defendant-appellant agreeing to pay him Rs. 30/- per month as rent of the property for being allowed to continue to remain in possession thereof as a tenant.

( 4 ) KALI Das appears to have died sometime in the year 19g6 or so, and after his death when the period of 5 years limited by the agreement was to expire, the first plaintiff-respondent, widow of kali Das, served a notice dated 30th May, 1967 Ext. 9 on the defendant appellant requiring him to re-convey the property to her within 30 days of the receipt of the notice on payment of the entire sale consideration. The defendant-appellant sent a reply dated 30th June. 1967, Ext. A-9, wherein he denied the right of the first plaintiff-respondent to purchase the property or that there was any agreement of re-conveyance with her. In deed, the very existence of the agreement of re- conveyance was denied and it was urged that Kali Das was merely a tenant on payment of rs. 30/~ per month which he had not paid. To this, a notice by way of rejoinder dated 26th July, 1967 was served by the first plaintiff-respondent. Reference was made to the fact that the agreement for re-conveyance was registered and even the volume and book number etc. , were given and also the date on which the agreement was registered by the Sub-Registrar. It was asserted that first plaintiff respondent, was the widow and heir of Kali Das. The defendant-appellants claim that Kali Das was a tenant and after him the plaintiff-respondent was a tenant (sic) about the tenancy had been got executed from Kali Das, the defendant was not bound by it inasmuch as Kali Das never paid any rent to the defendant nor did the plaintiff ever do so. A demand was made that the property should be conveyed within 15 days. The defendant does not appear to have made any reply to the rejoinder notice, Ext. 8, and did not re-convey the property. The plaint was thereupon presented in forma pauperis on 9th September. 1967 and although the first plaintiff made a statement while presenting the plaint that day that she did not have