A plaintiff must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract to obtain specific performance, as required by law.

1. Heard.
This appeal is directed against impugned judgment and decree dated 22.08.2015 passed by the Sixth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.6A of 2013, by which, appellant's prayer for decree of specific performance of contract has been partly allowed.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for grant of decree of specific performance on the pleadings, inter alia, that the defendant had entered into an agreement of sale on 26.03 2010 (Ex P/1) with the plaintiff for sale of 2 parcels of land, one situated in Kh. No.725/15 admeasuring 2028 sq.ft. and the other situated in adjoining Khasra. No.725/13 admeasuring 1934 sq.ft. An advance of Rs.5,00,000/- was also paid to the defendant and it was clearly agreed to between the parties that whatever actual extent of land is found on the spot, in possession of the defendant, would be sold by defendant to the plaintiff @ 900 per sq.ft. Further case of the plaintiff was that under the agreement, it was implicit that the defendant would get demarcation of the land done and thereafter, he will inform the plaintiff but this was not done and later on, when despite notice given to the defendant for execution of sale deed by receiving balance amount of consideration, followed by notice requiring the defendant to remain present in the office of Registrar on 23.03.2013, sale deed was not executed, the plaintiff was required to file suit.

3. The respondent/defendant, though, did not dispute execution of agreement dated 26.03.2010, the defence of the respondent was that though under the said agreement, one part of the land was sold to the third party at the request of the plaintiff, in respect of the other part of the land (subject land), the plaintiff did not approach the defendant nor took any initiative to get the sale deed executed. According to the defendant, it was defendant, who was making repeated efforts requiring the plaintiff to execute sale deed by paying balance of the sale consideration but despite that, the plaintiff did not do, therefore, in these circumstances, the plaintiffs suit was liable to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed as many as six issues which included the issue as to whether an agreement was executed between the parties and also an important issue as to whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

5. After allowing the parties to lead their respective oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court concluded that as far as agreement dated 26.03.2010 is concerned, the same is found proved but it held that the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and wiliness in terms of legal requirement as contained in Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act as the plaintiff did not take any steps towards execution of sale deed after 10.08.2010 until filing of the suit. Learned trial Court also held that the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness, i.e. availability of fund or capacity to generate fund for payment of consideration, taking into consideration that the plaintiff failed to lead any evidence regarding availability of fund in any of the accounts or any other clinching evidence proving his capacity to generate fund towards purchase. Thus, even though, the agreement was found proved, learned trial Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to decree of specific performance of contract. However, the advance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was directed to be returned and the suit was partly decreed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that learned trial Court, having held that agreement is proved, ought to