Continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance, as mandated by Section 16 (C) of the Specific Relief Act.

Heard finally with consent.

This second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is at the instance of, defendant No. 1 in the suit challenging the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 25-8-99 dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 33-A/99 and affirming the judgment of the Trial Court. The Trial Court by judgment dated 9-2-99 had decreed the suit for specific performance being Civil Suit No. 89-A/98 filed by the respondent No. 1.

2. The respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) had filed suit for specific performance pleading that the appellant had executed an agreement dated 26-7-91 for sale of the suit plot for a consideration of Rs. 21,000/- and had received 10,000/- in advance and the sale deed was to be executed within four months, but the appellant did not execute the sale deed and on 12-12-91 had declined to execute the sale deed. The notice dated 23-12-91 was given, but in spite of that the appellant did not appear before the Registrar to execute the sale deed. The appellant demanded the consideration amount @ Rs. 25/- per sq. ft. The respondent No. 1 was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the appellant on 9-1-92 had given reply to the notice that she did not want to sell the said suit plot and stated that the agreement to sell was forged document, which was not signed by her.

3. The suit was opposed by the appellant denying the execution of the agreement and receipt of any advance consideration amount. It was stated that the relations between the appellant and respondent No. 1 are that of brother and sister and either respondent No. 1 fraudulently obtained her signature on the agreement or the signature are forged.

4. The Trial Court by the judgment dated 9-2-99 had decreed the.suit filed by the respondent No. 1 holding that appellant had executed the agreement dated 24-7-91 for sale of the suit plot and that the appellant with a view to obtain higher price, had not executed the sale deed. The First Appellate Court has affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

5. This Court vide order dated 28-8-2000 had admitted the present second appeal on the following substantial question of law :-

"Whether in the absence of a finding that the plaintiff/respondent was ever willing and ready to perform hfs part of the contract, decree for specific performance of the contract passed in his favour, is bad in law and liable to be set aside."

6. - Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that Trial Court had not framed any issue on readiness and willingness to perform the contract, therefore, no evidence was led by the parties and no finding has been recorded in this regard. The suit has not been decreed keeping in view of the requirement of provisions contained in Section 16 (C) of the Specific Relief Act.

7. Learned Counsel for the respondent supporting the impugned judgment submitted that Courts below have decreed the suit on the basis of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, therefore, framing of issue is not necessary. He further submits that pleading relating to readiness and willingness is not specifically denied by the appellant in the written statement, which amounts to admission, therefore, I no issue and finding in this regard was required.

8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. A perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court indicates that Trial Court had neither framed any issue in respect of readiness and willingness on the part of the respondent No. 1 to perform his part of the contract nor the Trial Court he is recorded any finding in this regard. So far as the First Appellate Court is concerned, it has affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court without notice in the aforesaid aspect. Though, the First Appellate Court has made observation that respondent No. 1 was ready to perform his part of the contract, but the said observation is not in accordance with Section 16 (C) of the Specific Relief Act, nor it is supported by the evide