Substantial payment by the vendee is a robust factor in favor of granting specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is a plaintiff’s second appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance of contract. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court, but the decree has been modified in appeal by the Lower Appellate Court, substituting the direction for specific performance with an order for refund of the admitted earnest.

2. By a registered agreement to sell dated 13.06.1974 executed by Mishri Lal in favour of Smt. Jeet Kaur, Jeet Kaur, the plaintiff, alleged that Mishri Lal had covenanted to transfer for a sale consideration of Rs.9000/- his one-fourth share in the property, subject matter of contract. The property, agreed to be sold in terms of the registered agreement dated 13.06.1974, shall be called hereinafter as ‘the suit property’. The details of the suit property are :

3. According to Smt. Jeet Kaur, the sole plaintiff-appellant, now represented by her heirs and LRs, plaintiff-appellant Nos.1/1 and 1/2, who shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘the plaintiff’, executed an agreement to sell dated 13.06.1974, for short, ‘the suit agreement’ covenanting that the defendant, Mishri Lal had received in earnest a sum of Rs.7900/- until time of execution of the last mentioned agreement; the balance of Rs.1100/- was covenanted to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time of execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff’s further case is that the defendant, Mishri Lal agreed that he would secure for the suit property a bhumidhari sanad and within the time period of a month of its receipt, would execute a registered sale deed, as covenanted, upon receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.1100/-. The defendant, Mishri Lal, who is now represented on record by his sole heir and LR, Natthi Singh, his son, as respondent No.1/1, shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘the defendant’.

4. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had agreed that upon receipt of the bhumidhari sanad, he would inform the plaintiff by notice about the fact, calling upon the latter to execute the conveyance. The plaintiff averred in his plaint that the defendant, in terms of the suit agreement, did not give him any information about receipt of the bhumidhari sanad, despite the plaintiff verbally inquiring of the defendant time over again regarding the fact aforesaid. As such, the plaintiff caused a notice dated 31.01.1977 to be served upon the defendant to the effect that the defendant may, in terms of the suit agreement, receive the balance sale consideration from the plaintiff and execute the covenanted sale deed at the earliest, and get the same registered.

5. The plaintiff pleads that despite service of the said notice, the defendant is not ready to execute the covenanted sale deed, in breach of the suit agreement. There is then the plaintiff’s case that she has, in terms of the suit agreement, been always ready and willing, and is still ready and willing to secure execution of the covenanted sale deed. It may be remarked here that the precise words in the pleading employed in Paragraph No.7 of the plaint are : ^^lnSo cSukek djkus dks rS;kj Fkh vkSj vc Hkh gSA

6. This Court noticed that the pleading on the point does not mention the Hindi equivalents of ready and willing, which are concomitants of the cause of action under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Hindi equivalents of ready and willing are 'rRij' and 'bPNqd'. Here, the word employed is a single word 'rS;kj', an Urdu vernacular, which may not precisely represent the two distinct ideas of readiness and willingness postulated by the statute. However, since there was no issue raised about thi