In a suit for specific performance, 'readiness and willingness' under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act is a question of fact determined by the party's conduct, and additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC cannot be admitted if it alters the fundamental nature of the pleaded defence.

1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants/defendants was dismissed, and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance of the contract, was upheld.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 28.05.1990, in respect of the suit land measuring 8 kanals, fully detailed and described in the plaint. Defendant No.1 entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff for 8 kanals of land out of a total holding of 10 kanals 12 marlas, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid and received as earnest money on the date of execution of the agreement. The sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 28.05.1991. It is the case of the plaintiff that he remained ready and willing, and continues to remain ready and willing, to perform his part of the contract. On the stipulated date, the plaintiff appeared in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mukerian, along with the balance sale consideration and necessary expenses; however, Defendant No.1 failed to turn up. The plaintiff, in order to demonstrate his bona fides, got an affidavit attested thereafter to afford another opportunity to Defendant No.1. A legal notice dated 05.09.1991 was served upon Defendant No.1, calling upon him to execute the sale deed on 12.09.1991. On the said date as well, the plaintiff remained present in the office of the Sub-Registrar with the balance sale consideration and requisite expenses, but Defendant No.1 again failed to appear. Hence, the present suit was filed. Defendant No.1 contested the suit by raising preliminary objections, inter alia, that the plaintiff had no cause of action and lacked locus standi to institute the present suit. On merits, it was contended that the alleged agreement to sell was the result of fraud, fabrication, and misrepresentation. According to defendant No.1, he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the plaintiff at an interest rate of 12% per annum, and in acknowledgment thereof, a pronote was executed. It was further alleged that when the parties went to Mukerian for this purpose, the plaintiff, in connivance with the deed writer and witnesses, fabricated the alleged agreement to sell dated 28.05.1990. Defendant No.1 asserted that he is an illiterate person and came to know of the alleged agreement only upon receipt of summons in the present case. It was further pleaded that the market value of the land in question was not less than Rs. 80,000/- per acre. While disputing the claim for specific performance, Defendant No.1 submitted that, at best, the plaintiff would be entitled to refund of Rs. 25,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum, and prayed for dismissal of the suit. Defendant No.2 appeared but failed to file any written statement and was subsequently proceeded against ex parte. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed:

1. Whether the defendants agreed to sell the disputed land in favour of the plaintiff and they also executed an agreement to sell dated 28.5.90 in his favour on receipt of Rs.25000/-as earnest money? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.

4. If issue No.1 is established, wheth