Readiness and willingness must be adequately pleaded and proven for specific performance claims.

1. This is the defendant's First Appeal under S.96 of the CPC assailing the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 30.3.2013 passed by the 5th ADJ, Durg in Civil Suit No.18 - A / 2011 decreeing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance.

2. The suit property consists of land ad measuring 2400 square feet and the house constructed thereupon bearing Khasra No.267/325 at Shikshak Nagar, Charoda, Tehsil Patan, District Durg. As per the plaint allegations, the defendant executed an agreement on 15.11.2007 for sale of the suit property to the plaintiff for Rs.9 lakhs and received advance amount of Rs.1 lakh on 17.11.2007 and executed agreement (Ex. - P / 1) on the said date. It was agreed that the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs shall be paid by 30.11.2007 and the remaining balance of Rs.4 lakhs shall be paid after the plaintiff obtains housing loan. Before execution of the sale deed, the defendant shall evict the tenant residing in the suit house. It was further stated that the plaintiff prepared an account payee demand pay order for Rs.4 lakhs on 30.11.2007 and went to the defendant's house. However, in the absence of defendant, his wife was handed over photostat copy of the draft informing her that her husband should collect the draft on his return and complete the documentation so that the plaintiff applies for housing loan. The defendant came to the plaintiff's house on 5.12.2007 and informed that he has forgotten to bring the documents. The plaintiff got published one public notice about the agreement but the defendant came out with a reply to the public notice repudiating the contract / agreement, whereupon the plaintiff served a counter reply to the defendant's lawyer on 14.12.2007. The defendant further informed the plaintiff that the agreement has been cancelled.

3. It was further stated that the plaintiff again requested the defendant that he would agree to purchase the property without obtaining loan but the defendant again denied to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff was thus ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and prayed for decree for specific performance.

4. The defendant's stand, in substance, was that the plaintiff did not comply with the condition of payment of Rs.4 lakhs by 30.11.2007 and instead got published a public notice, therefore, on plaintiff's committing default, the contract was cancelled.

5. On the basis of evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit, which has been assailed by learned counsel for the appellant on submission that the finding in respect of readiness and willingness is neither properly pleaded nor proved. It is also argued that no relief for setting aside cancellation of agreement has been prayed, therefore, the suit for specific performance cannot be decreed. It is further urged that the plaintiff has not submitted proof of availability of funds to demonstrate his capacity to purchase the property, which is necessary in view of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court, therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the plaintiff having proved all the necessary ingredients for obtaining a decree for specific performance, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is unassailable, therefore, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. In para 9 of the plaint, the plaintiff would aver that he was always ready to execute his part of the contract by mentioning t