TYAGI, J.—This is a defendants appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Alwar dated 31st of August, 1973, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance. 2. Plaintiff Daulatram filed a suit making an averment that he entered into an agreement with the defendants Gyanchand and Padamchand to purchase a shop belonging to the defendants for an amount of Rs. 7,000/- and against this price he paid Rs. 1,300/- to the defendants on the same day and a further sum of Rs. 500/- was paid after some time. The grievance of the plaintiff was that the defendants did not execute the sale deed and hand over the possession of the disputed shop to the plaintiff. Notices were exchanged between the parties. The defendants in a reply to one of the notices alleged that the price fixed was not Rs. 7,000/- but Rs. 11,500/- and that it was so agreed between the parties that within a period of one month the plaintiff shall pay to the defendants the balance of the price and get the sale deed registered, but the plaintiff failed to discharge his obligation under the agreement and therefore he forfeited the amount of Rs. 1,300/- which was terned as an earnest money by the defendants and that after the period of one month the plaintiff was not entitled to claim the specific performance. The defendants also denied to have received the amount of Rs. 500/- from the plaintiff. The plaintiff after receiving the said notice was left with no alternative but to file a suit alleging the aforementioned facts and prayed that a decree for the specific performance of the contract be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and that if the court arrives at a finding that the sale price was fixed at Rs. 11,500/- the plaintiff would pay the balance of the sale price after deducting Rs. 1,800/-. A decree for Rs. 200/- as damages was also sought by the plaintiff and it was also prayed that in case the decree for specific performance is not granted, the defendants may be asked to refund Rs. 1,800/- with interest at the rate of 12% to the plaintiff. 3. The defendants came out with a plea that was disclosed by them in reply to the notice (Ex. 1,800/- with interest at the rate of 12% to the plaintiff. 3. The defendants came out with a plea that was disclosed by them in reply to the notice (Ex. 4) received from the plaintiff dated 1-3-1969 and prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with costs. 4. After the written-statement was filed by the defendants, the plaint was amended by the plaintiff wherein it was specifically mentioned that the plaintiff was ready and willing to discharge his obligation under the agreement and even now if the court feels that the sale price was fixed at Rs. 11,500/- he is ready and willing to pay the balance of the sale price to the defendants to enable them to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. 5. The trial court framed, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, as many as 10 issues. The plaintiff Daulatram came in the witness-box and his statement was recorded. He also produced eight other witnesses. In order to demolish the case of the plaintiff both the defendants entered the witness-box and deposed that the price of the shop was fixed at Rs. 11,500/- and that the time was the essence of the contract; therefore, after the lapse of the period of one month the plaintiff could not claim a decree for the specific performance of the agreement. They also denied the receipt of Rs. 500/- from the plaintiff. Besides these two witnesses, the defendants examined D. W. 3 Damodarlal who was responsible for playing the role of a middle man to bring the two parties together for entering into the said agreement. Ramjilal (D.W. 4) who was the Munim of the defendants was also examined to prove the terms of the agreement of Sale and also to rebut the fact that he did not go to shop of the plaintiff to deliver a receipt for Rs. 1,300/- as deposed by the plaintiff himself. 6. The trial court, after carefully examining the evidence of the parties, rejected the plaintiffs claim that the defendants had agreed to sell their shop for Rs. 7,000/-and held that the price was fixed at Rs. 11,500/-. The court also held that the plaintiff could not prove the payment of Rs. 1,300/- as deposed by the plaintiff himself. 6. The trial court, after carefully examining the evidence of the parties, rejected the plaintiffs claim that the defendants had agreed to sell their shop for Rs. 7,000/-and held that the price was fixed at Rs. 11,500/-. The court also held that the plaintiff could not prove the payment of Rs. 500/- towards the balance of the sale price, but the court passed a decree for the specific performance of the agreement directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance of the sale price, that is Rs. 10,200/- in the court and the defendants were directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is in these circumstances that the defendants have filed this appeal in this Court. The plaintiff has also preferred cross-objections claiming that this Court should hold that the price fixed for the sale of the shop was Rs 7,000/- and not Rs. 11,500/- and that it may further be held that the plaintiff had paid, besides Rs. 1,300/-, a sum of Rs. 500/-to the defendants towards the sale price. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that in the face of the finding given by the court below that the price of the shop was fixed at Rs. 11,500/- a decree for the specific performance of the contract could not be passed against the defendants as the plaintiff, who was all through claiming the price at Rs 7,000/- cannot be said to have been ready and willing to discharge his obligation under the contract of sale because he never offered to the defendants the real balance of sale price which was Rs. 10,200/-. Mr. Hastimal, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff respondent, on the other hand, contended that the plaintiff in his amended plaint had specifically averred that in case the sale price is found to be. Rs. 11,500/-he was prepared to pay the balance calculated on the basis of the said price and therefore in the circumstances of this case it should be held that the plaintiff was ready and willing to discharge his obligation under the agreement of sale. 8. Rs. 11,500/-he was prepared to pay the balance calculated on the basis of the said price and therefore in the circumstances of this case it should be held that the plaintiff was ready and willing to discharge his obligation under the agreement of sale. 8. before deciding this question whether in the light of the finding of the court below a decree for specific performance can be passed, I would like to dispose of the cross objections of the plaintiff wherein he requires this Court to hold that the price settled between the parties was Rs. 7,000/- and not Rs. 11,500/-. I was taken through the statements of the plaintiffs witnesses. Plaintiff Daulatram (P. W. 1) has, however, stated that the price was settled at Rs. 7,000/-. He produced Moolchand (P.W. 2) and Mangalram (P.W. 3) to prove that the settlement arrived at between the parties for the sale of the shop was for Rs. 7,000/-. In order to draw support to this averment the plaintiff produced Rameshwar (P.W. 5) who had purchased a ,neighbouring shop from Pushpadevi, daughter of Padamchand defendant, for Rs. 7,000/-. The learned Judge while dealing with this question has very carefully dealt with the testimony of these witnesses and he found that no reliance can be placed on the depositions of Daulatram (P.W. 1), Moolchand (P.W. 2) and Mangalram (P.W. 3) regarding the settlement of price. P.W. 2 Moolchand could not, however, point out the exact shop about which the agreement was entered into between the parties. He even could not correctly disclose the age of Gyanchand who, in his opinion, was about 60 to 65 years of age. Similarly, Mangalrams testimony which suffers from various infirmities pointed out by the learned trial court, was not found to be trustworthy. Daulatram (P.W. 1) is the plaintiff himself. But if their statements are examined in the light of the exchange of notices, then it becomes clear that the price was not settled at Rs. 7,000/-. In a reply to the notice (Ex. 4) the defendants counsel Shri Madanlal Bhargava made it clear that the price settled was Rs. 11,500/- and not Rs. 7,000/-. This reply is dated 1st of March, 1969. 7,000/-. In a reply to the notice (Ex. 4) the defendants counsel Shri Madanlal Bhargava made it clear that the price settled was Rs. 11,500/- and not Rs. 7,000/-. This reply is dated 1st of March, 1969. Thereafter another notice was issued on behalf of Daulatram by Shri Shradhanand Sharma, Advocate on 20th of March, 1969 wherein this fact was not denied by the learned Advocate of the plaintiff that the price was not fixed at Rs. 11.500/-. This document is Ex. 5. When a controversy about the sale price had been raised by the defendants in their reply dated 1-3-1969 (Ex.4), then it was but natural for the plaintiff, when another notice was issued on his behalf, to have refuted the allegation made by the defendants about the sale price but it was not done. 9. Rameshwar has come in the witness-box and has deposed that he had purchased a shop in the neighbourhood of the disputed shop from the daughter of Padam Chand defendant—Smt. Pushpadevi, for Rs 7,000/- but the condition of this shop as pointed out by the learned Judge is different from the disputed shop and, therefore, it cannot afford a clue to fix the price of the disputed shop at Rs 7,000/-. Besides the sale transaction between Rameshwar and Smt. Pushpadevi, the plaintiff has placed reliance on two other sale transactions of similar shops which were sold to Hardwarilal and a godown purchased by Gaindmal. The learned trial judge himself went to inspect the site and found that the condition of the shops that were sold to Rameshwar, Hardwari Lal and Gaindmal was different from the condition of the suit shop and therefore those transactions cannot afford any ground to accept the averment of the plaintiff that the agreement was entered between the parties for the sale of the suit shop for Rs. 7,000/-. Gaindmal (P.W. 9) has specifically mentioned that the premises purchased by him were a godown and not a shop and that the godown is situate on the back of the shop. In my opinion, these instances of prior sale of other shops cannot afford a valid clue to ascertain the price of the suit shop. 10. D.W. 3 Damodarlal was a middleman (Dalai) for bringing the two parties together and settle the transaction of sale. He has specifically mentioned that the price that was demanded by Gyanchand was Rs. In my opinion, these instances of prior sale of other shops cannot afford a valid clue to ascertain the price of the suit shop. 10. D.W. 3 Damodarlal was a middleman (Dalai) for bringing the two parties together and settle the transaction of sale. He has specifically mentioned that the price that was demanded by Gyanchand was Rs. 13,000/- but ultimately the sale price was fixed at Rs. 11,500/-. Not a single question has been put in the cross-examination by the plaintiff to this witness to verify the veracity of this statement. Similarly, from other witnesses, except D.W. 1 Gyanchand, no cross-examination is directed regarding the fixation of the price of this shop. This conduct of the plaintiff also suggests that in the heart of his heart he was accepting that the price was fixed at Rs. 11,500/- and that he was perhaps taking an advantage of prior sales to get the price reduced in this litigation by making allegation which was far from being true. In my opinion, the trial court has come to a correct finding that the price fixed was Rs. 11,500/- and not Rs. 7,000/-. 11. As regards the payment of Rs. 500/- to the defendants by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has produced 2 witnesses to support his averment. They arc Kanhaiya (P.W. 4) and Shankerlal (P.W. 6). Both the learned counsel for the parties have read out these statements to me. I very carefully scrutinised their testimony in the light of the comments made by the trial court and I find it difficult to accept the version given by them about the payment of Rs. 500/- to the defendants. It is strange that while paying Rs. 1,300/- to the defendants towards the part payment of the sale price of the shop the plaintiff took sufficient care to obtain a receipt from the defendants but he did not take any care to obtain the receipt for the payment of Rs. 500/-. In the absence of any reliable proof, it is difficult for me to take a different view about the fact of the payment of Rs. 50©/- by the plaintiff to the defendants towards the sale price. 12. 500/-. In the absence of any reliable proof, it is difficult for me to take a different view about the fact of the payment of Rs. 50©/- by the plaintiff to the defendants towards the sale price. 12. Now I take up the question of law raised by the defendants counsel whether in the circumstances of this case when the plaintiff did not offer to the defendants the full sale price as fixed between the parties, could it be said that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Sec. 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him. in order to secure a decree for specific performance it is incumbent upon the plaintiff first to aver then to prove that he has performed or was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In the present case, it has to be seen whether the plaintiff can be said to have shown his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract even though he pleaded with the defendants that the price as fixed between the parties was not Rs. 11,500/- but only Rs. 7,000/-. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant in this connection has drawn my attention to a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kommisetti Venkatasubbayya vs. Karamsetti Venkateswarlu(l). In that case the plaintiff asserted that he had already paid Rs. 1500/- to the defendant and that he was willing to pay the balance of Rs.272/-towards the sale price of the property. The Court held that the plea taken by the plaintiff that he had already paid Rs. 1500/- was false and, therefore, in those circumstances the learned Judge observed that the plaintiff was disentitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance not only on the ground that he had set up a false plea but also on the ground that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract because in the opinion of the learned Judge the offer made by the plaintiff to pay only Rs. 272.50 as the balance payable and not the full amount of Rs 1772.50 which would show that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. According to the learned Judge, unless the plaintiff could show his readiness and willingness to pay the entire balance of the purchase money he cannot be said to be a person who was ready and willing to discharge his obligation under the contract and hence he was not entitled to a decree for specific performance 14. It has been found by the trial court that the Price fixed was Rs 11,500/- and not Rs 7,000/-and, therefore, the balance payable by the plaintiff under the contract was Rs. 10,200/- which he did not offer to pay to the defendant. Mr. Hastimal, however, argues that the alternative plea taken by the plaintiff that if the court fixes the price at Rs. 11,500/- he would pay the balance, shows that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and in support of this contention reliance was i placed by him on Arjuna Mudaliar vs. Laksbmi Ammal(2). In that case various pleas were taken by the plaintiff but he also stated in his plaintiff in the alternative: "Though the plaintiff is entitled to claim larger relief from the defendant the plaintiff has no objection to pay the defendant any sum that the Court should be pleased to fix" This plea, according to Mr. Hastimal shows that the plaintiff was ready and wiling to perform his part of the contract as ultimately determined by the Court. The learned Judges dealing with this argument observed as follows — "No authority has been cited to us that an averment that the plaintiff had no objection to perform his perform the contract in accordance with the decision of the Court is not a sufficient averment of his readiness and willingness to part of the contract." 15. These observations, in my opinion, hardly help the plaintiff in this case. The readiness and willingness to perform the contract must be from the time when the plaintiff has to discharge his obligation under the contract. These observations, in my opinion, hardly help the plaintiff in this case. The readiness and willingness to perform the contract must be from the time when the plaintiff has to discharge his obligation under the contract. According to the provisions of S. 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act,1963, it should be averred by the plaintiff that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the obligation under the contract from the date when he had to discharge his obligation. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellant draw my attention to a case decided by Travancore Cochin High Court in Simon Jacob Silas vs. Casper John Balthasar Kohlhoff (3). In that case, the learned Judges have held that the readiness and willingness to perform the obligation under the contract should be from the date of the contract upto the date of the decree. In that case the plaintiff wanted the implementation of the contract not according to the terms of the contract but with a modification which he deemed proper and in the plaint the willingness disclosed was not to deposit the full amount due under it but such balance as remained after making the deductions he considered Justifiable and, therefore, in those circumstances it was held that this type of readiness and willingness was nothing but a negation of the fulfilment of the original term of the contract. In Ardeshir H. Mama vs. Plora Sassoon(4), their Lordships of the Privy Council held that in order to obtain a decree for specific performance that plaintiff should show his continued readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract in accordance with the terms from the date of the contract to the date of the hearing. 16. In the light of these decisions, it can very well be said that the plaintiff who from the very beginning took a stand that the price fixed was Rs. 7,000/- and not Rs, 11,500/- was not prepared to perform that obligation under the contract which fell to his share, that is, he was not ready to pay the balance of Rs. 10,200/- towards the sale price of the property. The court below has determined that the price fixed was Rs. 11,500/- I have also arrived at the same conclusion. 7,000/- and not Rs, 11,500/- was not prepared to perform that obligation under the contract which fell to his share, that is, he was not ready to pay the balance of Rs. 10,200/- towards the sale price of the property. The court below has determined that the price fixed was Rs. 11,500/- I have also arrived at the same conclusion. The Plea taken by the plaintiff that the shop was sold for Rs.7,000/- by the defendants has been declared not a correct plea and therefore when he offered only that balance he could calculate by taking the price at Rs. 7,000/- he cannot say that he was ready and willing to perform his obligation under the contract In my opinion, the plaintiff has forfeited his right to claim a decree for specific performance when he unilaterally modified the terms of the contract and reduced the price from Rs.l1,500/- to Rs. 7,000/- In such circumstances, the decree passed by the trial court for the specific performance of the contract cannot be sustained. 17. It is admitted between the parties that the plaintiff had paid to the defendants Rs.l,300/-towards the sale price. No doubt, the defendants have termed this payment as the payment of the earnest money which, according to the defendants; stands forfeited when the transaction could not be materialised within the stipulated period of one month. It is not established on the record that time was the essence of this contract and I feel that the court below has rightly held that the period of one month was not the essence of the contract and therefore if the sale could not be effected within a period of one month, the plaintiff is entitled to get back his money which he had paid to the defendants in pursuance of the agreement towards the part-payment of the sale price. 18. The result is that the cross-objections filed by the plaintiff-respondent are dismissed with costs. The appeal is allowed. The decree for the specific performance of the contract is set aside The defendants shall pay back the plaintiff the amount of Rs. 1,300/- received by them from the plaintiff towards the part-payment of the sale price within a period of two months If the defendants fail to make this payment with in the aforesaid period, the plaintiff will be entitled to recover this amount with 6% interest from today. 1,300/- received by them from the plaintiff towards the part-payment of the sale price within a period of two months If the defendants fail to make this payment with in the aforesaid period, the plaintiff will be entitled to recover this amount with 6% interest from today. No order as to costs. 19. After the decree was passed, the plaintiff had deposited an amount of Rs. 10,200/- which has been kept as a fixed deposit in the bank. That amount shall be refunded to the plaintiff with the interest that has accrued thereon.