The statutory requirement for specific performance of a contract, emphasizing the need for the party seeking specific performance to prove their readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract.

The second appeal filed by the defen dant/appellants has come up before this Court under the following circum stances.

2. The plaintiff/respondent Ganesh Shanker had filed a suit for specific performance of contract for sale against Mohammad Husain (deceased) prede cessor in interest of appellants No. 3 to 6 and Ahmad Husain appellant No. 1 in respect of the property describe in para 1 of the plaint for consideration of Rs. 22,000/- on 26. 6. 1981 after receiving Rs. 500/- as earnest money with the stipu lation that sale deed would be executed within three months in favour of plaintiff respondent. However, inspite of plaintiff respondent being willing and ready to get the sale deed executed after performing part of contract, the defendants failed to execute the sale deed, hence there arose necessary of suit. During pendency of the case Smt. Jaibunnisa wife of Gulam Husain was also impleaded as party in the case.

3. The suit was contested by defendants who did not dispute the execution of registered agreement but it was pleaded that agreement was got executed by fraud.

4. As regards the plea of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff there was no specific denial from the side of the defendants No. 1 and 2. It was only defendant No. 3 who was not a party to the contract, denied this plea.

5. The relevant issues were framed on the basis of pleadings of the party.

6. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, learned Trial Court recorded its findings on all the issues in favour of the plain tiff/respondent. However, while decreeing the suit, exercising its discretion under section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, it did not pass decree for specific performance of agreement for sale but directed only the refund of the earnest money paid to the defendant No. 1 and 2.

7. The plaintiff being aggrieved of the said judgment and decree preferred First Appeal before the learned District Judge which came up for hearing be fore learned VIIIth Additional District Judge who allowed the appeal and de creed the suit for specific performance of the agreement by means of the judg ment and decree dated 22. 11. 2000.

8. It is against the said judgment and decree of the learned first Appellate Court, the defendants have come up before this Court in second ap peal.

9. The appeal was admitted on several substantial questions of law. 4 However, during the course of argument Sri Mohd. Saeed appearing on behalf of the appellants pressed only two substantial questions of law before this Court for consideration in this second appeal. Firstly, that the learned Appellate Court failed to record any findings regarding plaintiffs readiness and willingness in performance of his part for the execution of the agreement for sale and Secondly without considering the matter under section 20 of the Specific Relief Act decreed the suit for specific performance as against the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court for refund of the earnest money alone.

10. Sri Subhash Vidyarthi, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that substantial question of law on the readiness and willingness does not arises as in the written statement the defendants have not denied the plaintiffs plea regarding his being ready and willing throughout to get the sale deed executed by performing his part and it was because of this reason, no issue was framed. He cited the judgment of Honble Supreme Court also in Mst. Sugani v. Kameshwar Das and another, 2006 (63) ALR 772 (SC)=2006 (42) AIC 926.

11. On the other point the contention raised on behalf of the respondent is that the case of the appellants did not fall within the meaning of section 16 of the Specific Relief Act for exercise of the discretion in his favour.

12. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the appellants relying on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Umabai and another v. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan, 2005 (60) ALR 463 (SC)=2005 (30) AIC 530 and N. P. Thirugnanam v. Dr. R