Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The plaintiff is in this second appeal. He instituted a suit for specific performance. His case is that the defendant had executed a registered agreement to sell on 31.1.2007 for a sale consideration of Rs. 70,000/- in respect of one acre land out of 1.951 hectares of an agricultural plot Khasra No. 408. He paid Rs. 50,000/- as advance and the balance amount Rs. 20,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale-deed by 31.1.2008 or before that.

2. The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff orally made request to the defendant several times for execution of the sale-deed but he did not pay any attention and failed to execute the sale-deed within one year which was the time mentioned in the agreement to sell.

3. According to the plaintiff, the cause of action arose when on 31.1.2008 the plaintiff did not turn up for execution of the sale-deed, in spite of the due notice, on 22.1.2011. His conduct clearly demonstrates that he was not interested to execute the sale-deed.

4. The defendant contested the suit and he denied that he intended to transfer his land in favour of the plaintiff. His stand is that the plaintiff is an agent of fertilizer traders and after taking commission he help the farmers to get fertilizers on credit. The farmers usually pay back the loan after harvesting season. While giving the loan the traders get the signatures of the farmers on the blank papers against the security. They insist for the photograph of the loanee also. The plaintiff gave fertilizers worth Rs. 50,000/- to the defendant for which the defendant has paid Rs. 70,000/- alongwith interest. After payment of the said amount when the defendant asked him to return his signed papers, the plaintiff did not return the same. After some time, he instituted this suit on the basis of those signed papers.

5. The trial Court after receiving the evidence framed necessary issues. The trial Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to get the sale-deed executed pursuant to the agreement to sell and decreed the suit.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant went in appeal before the Additional District Judge. His appeal has been allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been set aside. The appellate Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness in terms of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 hence on the said ground the suit has been dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings recorded by the appellate Court are perverse and from the statement of the P.W.-1, Paper No. 19-Ga and various documentary evidences, the plaintiff has proved his readiness and willingness to get the sale-deed executed after 31.7.2008. It was further submitted that the appellate Court has illegally dismissed the suit only on the ground that the plaintiff has not filed any documentary evidence or any notice to show that he had given notice to the defendant to execute the sale-deed.

8. Lastly, he urged that the plaintiff has paid substantial amount of Rs. 50,000/- as advance and only Rs. 20,000/- were due to which he was always ready and willing to pay in terms of the agreement to sell.

9. Learned counsel for the caveator / defendant respondent submitted that the finding of the appellate Court that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract is a finding of fact and it is based on the material on record. He further submitted that the trial Court has not adverted to this issue at all and has decreed the suit of the plaintiff merely on the ground that the registered agreement to sell has been executed hence without considering other conditions for decreeing the suit for specific performance has granted the relief to the plaintiff.

10. Next he submitted that the decree for specific performance is a discre