Judgement This appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Cachar, and arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of immovable property. The plaintiffs case in brief is that they were tenants under defendant No. 1 in respect of the land in suit. Defendant No. 1 by an agreement dated 25-6-65 agreed to- sell the land and the houses thereon to the plaintiffs for Rupees 4,500.00 and received a sum of Rs. 500.00 as advance. Subsequently defendant No. 1 declined to sell the land to the plaintiffs, but sold it to defendant No. 2 at Rupees 7,000.00. The plaintiffs therefore have filed this suit for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement. 2. Defendant No. 1 has filed a written statement. He admits the execution of Ext. 1 but his case is that after the first agreement to sell the land for Rs. 4,500.00 had failed, he returned the advance money of Rs. 500.00 to the plaintiffs and he received no advance under Ext. 1. In substance his plea is that the plaintiffs failed to perform their part of the agreement and failed to pay him the agreed amount of Rs. 7,000.00 in time to the defendant No. 1 and therefore he sold the land to defendant No. 2 for Rs. 7,000.00. The defendant No. 2 also has filed a written statement and contested the suit. His plea is that he is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice of any agreement between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1. 3. The learned Assistant District Judge framed a large number of issues, and after trial decreed the plaintiffs suit. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed two separate appeals before me District Judge, who, by a common judgment, set aside the judgment and decree of the Assistant District Judge and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. Hence this appeal by the plaintiffs. 4. The only point to be decided in this case is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree for specific performance of the agreement as per Ext. Hence this appeal by the plaintiffs. 4. The only point to be decided in this case is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree for specific performance of the agreement as per Ext. 1, the material portion of which is as follows :- "As you (plaintiffs) are in these houses as my tenants and as you have been carrying on your respective business in those houses, for your future security, I hereby promise that if I be in need of selling these houses and the leasehold land in future and if you agree to purchase these on the then prevailing market price, I shall be debarred from selling these to anybody else." Defendant No. 1 issued a notice Ext. 2 on 10-3-66 to the plaintiffs stating that he has decided to sell the property, and the price of the land has been settled at Rs. 7,000.00 and, in terms of the agreement dated 25-6-65 (i.e. Ext. 1), he was ready to sell the property to the plaintiffs; if they were willing to purchase the same at the said price, they should come to the office of the Sub-Registrar at Katlichherra on 17-3-66 with money. In case they did not turn up on that day with money he would be at liberty to sell the same to others. On receipt of the said notice the plaintiffs sent a reply, Ext. 3, which was received by defendant No. 1 on 15-3-66. In the reply, the plaintiffs stated that they were agreeable to purchase the property in terms of the agreement and they asked the defendant No. 1 to collect the leading men of the bazar for settling the market price and intimate the same to the plaintiffs, and fix a date for the sale of the land, so that they might be present there. 5. After consideration of the evidence on record the learned District Judge finds that the plaintiffs reply as per Ext. 3 amounts to a refusal on their part to purchase the property at Rs. 7,000.00. He further finds that there is no stipulation in Ext. 1 that the market price of the land would be settled by the leading men of the bazar. After receipt of the plaintiffs reply Ext. 3, the learned District Judge holds, defendant No. 1 was justified in selling the property to defendant No. 2. 6. 7,000.00. He further finds that there is no stipulation in Ext. 1 that the market price of the land would be settled by the leading men of the bazar. After receipt of the plaintiffs reply Ext. 3, the learned District Judge holds, defendant No. 1 was justified in selling the property to defendant No. 2. 6. The learned District Judge also finds that the plaintiffs claim that defendant No. 1 was to sell the land at Rs. 5,000.00 is false on two other grounds : (1) the plaintiffs say that on 16-3-66 the defendants came to Katlichherra bazar where in the Pharmacy of plaintiff No. 1, defendant No. 1 agreed at the intervention of the leading men of the bazar to sell the land at Rupees 5,000.00 and that the sale deed would be executed on 17-3-66. Plaintiffs further alleged that in pursuance of that agreement they came to Katlichherra on 17-3-66, ready with money to the Office of the Sub-Registrar but defendant No. 1 did not turn up, whereupon the plaintiffs filed a petition Ext. 7 before the Sub-Registrar on 17-3-66. It is nowhere stated in Ext. 7 that defendant No. 1 promised to sell the property to the plaintiff at Rs. 5,000.00. On the contrary Ext. 7 shows that the plaintiffs came to the office of the Sub-Registrar with Rs. 7,000.00. (2) the learned District Judge refers to a memorandum which has been proved in the case as Ext. 6 dated 17-3-66 executed by the plaintiffs which document contains, inter alia, that they attended the office of the Sab-Registrar on 17-3-66 with an amount of Rs. 7,000.00 for the execution of the sale deed. The learned District Judge therefore holds that the plaintiffs story that the market price of the suit property was fixed at Rs. 5,000.00 on 16-3-66 was entirely false. 7. Another factor shows that the plaintiffs did not know what the contract was and what amount of money they had to and did, oiler to defendant No. 1 for the purchase of the laud. In the plaint in para. 7 the plaintiffs stated that defendant No. 1 promised to sell the land to the plaintiffs and executed a deed and accepted Rs. 4,500.00 on taking Rs. 500.00 which had been already paid as an advance. So according to this averment the plaintiffs had to pay only Rs. In the plaint in para. 7 the plaintiffs stated that defendant No. 1 promised to sell the land to the plaintiffs and executed a deed and accepted Rs. 4,500.00 on taking Rs. 500.00 which had been already paid as an advance. So according to this averment the plaintiffs had to pay only Rs. 4,500.00 to the defendant on execution of the deed. But in paragraph 13 (Ka) the plaintiffs pray for a decree for the execution of a deed in their favour "on accepting Rs. 5,000.00 towards the price". In the remarks at the end of the prayer, the plaintiffs state "if in the fair trial of the Court the value of that holding is fixed at more than Rs. 5,000.00 then the plaintiffs are ready to pay additional cost to get the deed and will also pay the necessary court-fee." 8. It is contended by the respondent that in a suit for specific performance the plaintiff is bound to plead and prove that he was willing and is still willing to perform his part of the contract. But the plaintiffs have not averred that they were willing, and were still willing at the time of the suit, to perform their part of the agreement. Reliance has been placed on AIR 1928 PC 208, AIR 1967 SC 868 and (1968) 3 SCR 648 : ( AIR 1968 SC 1355 ). The Privy Council in the aforesaid decision has held that in this regard the law in India is the same as the law in England and that, "Although so far as the Act is concerned, there is no express statement in a suit for specific performance the averment of readiness and willingness on the plaintiffs part upto the date of decree is necessary as it was always in England.........". Approving this decision of the Privy Council the Supreme Court in AIR 1967 SC 868 has held : "......the respondent has claimed a decree for specific performance and it is for him to establish that he was since the date of the contract continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Approving this decision of the Privy Council the Supreme Court in AIR 1967 SC 868 has held : "......the respondent has claimed a decree for specific performance and it is for him to establish that he was since the date of the contract continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. If he fails to do so, his claim for specific performance must fail." In (1968) 3 SCR 648 : ( AIR 1968 SC 1355 ) the Supreme Court has held : "In a suit for specific performance the plaintiff should allege that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract." In the instant case, the plaintiff has not alleged in his plaint that he was willing since the agreement and was still willing at the time of the filing of the suit that he was ready to perform his part of the contract. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent (defendant No. 1) also submits that the agreement (Ext. 1) was not a concluded contract and as such it could not be specifically enforced. I do not think this point is available to him in this appeal. Defendant No. 1 did not take this plea in his written statement. On the contrary, be proceeded on the foot that the agreement was capable of being specifically enforced and in fact his case was that he was agreeable to perform his part of the agreement but it was the plaintiffs who failed to do so. 10. In the result this appeal has no force and is dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case I leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.