Hon’ble Siddhartha Varma, J.—This plaintiff’s second appeal has been filed against the judgement and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 4.5.1978.

2. The defendant-respondent IInd set who was a Bhumidhar of the property in question executed a sale-deed dated 24.9.1967 in favour of the respondent-defendant Ist set. On the very same day i.e. on 25.9.1967 the defendant-respondent Ist set executed an agreement to sell in favour of the defendant-respondent IInd set and agreed to re-convey the plot in question after two years to respondent-defendant IInd set Sri Kishan Lal against a payment of Rs. 5,000/-. On 3.7.1970, the respondent-defendant IInd set assigned his rights of re-conveyance under the agreement dated 25.9.1967 in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 8,000/- by a duly registered agreement. Thereafter plaintiff Shanti Devi who had got the right assigned in her favour of re-conveyance of the suit property, served a notice on 8.7.1970 on the defendant-respondent Ist set Sri Jagdish Lal expressing her desire of getting the property re-conveyed to herself. However, when there were no hopes of re-conveyance of the property in favour of the plaintiff, she served a final notice on 6.5.1971 on the defendant-respondent Ist set requesting him to attend the registration office at Hathras between 11:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on 10.5.1971 so that he could execute a registered sale-deed in her favour as per the deed of re-conveyance dated 25.9.1967.

However, when on 10.5.1971, the defendant-respondent Ist set did not turn up to execute the sale-deed in her favour, a suit being Suit No. 236 of 1971 was filed in the Court of Munsif, Hathras, which was decreed on 6.11.1975. Aggrieved thereby a first appeal was filed by the defendant-respondent Ist set Sri Jagdish Lal. Upon the first appeal being allowed the second appeal has now been filed.

3. The substantial questions of law which were framed by the Court at the time of admission were given as grounds No. 1,3 and 6 in the memo of appeal.

In substance, as per the questions of law what has to be decided is as to whether the defendant-respondent IInd set Sri Kishan Lal could have re-assigned his right for re-conveyance of the property which was to come to him from the defendant respondent Ist set to the plaintiff and also as to whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.

4. The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff relied on exhibits 10 and 11, that is, the deed of re-conveyance dated 25.9.1967 in favour of the defendant respondent IInd set by defendant-respondent Ist set and the deed of assignment in favour of the plaintiff dated 3.7.1970 and has stated that there could be no doubt that the right of re-conveyance to the defendant-respondent No. IInd set could be assigned to the plaintiff. He has stated that the only condition under which a right of re-conveyance could not have been assigned to the plaintiff was where the right was such which was absolutely personal to the defendant-respondent II set and was such that it could not have been exercised by a stranger.

5. Further, it has been argued by the counsel for the appellant that right from the time the suit was filed till it was decreed there was a definite case of the plaintiff that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and that the First Appellate Court had wrongly concluded that the plaintiff had not been able to prove that she was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. In fact learned counsel submitted that the the plaintiff was, and is even today ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.

6. The finding regarding readiness and willingness, it has been submitted, by learned counsel for the appellant, was arrived at by the Appellate Court in an absolutely perverse fashion without there being an issue framed. He has submitted that the First Appellate Court has looked into such facts and evidence which had not even sur