Short Note : 1. The facts briefly stated are that the plaintiff Pulanbai executed a sale-deed on 16th April 1965 in favour of the defendants Babulal and Kamlabai conveying to them 2.15 acres of land of Khasra No. 204/2. On the same date the defendants executed an agreement of re-conveyance in which they agreed to retransfer the same land in favour of the plaintiff in case she paid Rs. 1,000 upto 5th February 1967. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants without any reasonable cause refused to accept Rs. 1,000 and to re-convey the land in accordance with the agreement for re-conveyance. The plaintiff pleaded that she was always ready and willing to pay Rs. 1,000 and to obtain a deed of re-conveyance from the defendants. The defendants denied the plaint allegation that the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay Rs. 1,000 on or before 5th February 1967. The trial Court accepted the plaintiff's case that she was willing to pay Rs. 1,000 but the defendants refused to re-convey the land in her favour. On this finding, the suit was decreed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge held that it was not proved that the plaintiff actually tendered the amount on 4th or 5th February 1967 in the Sub-Registrar's office and, therefore, it could not be said that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement. On this finding, the Additional District Judge allowed the defendant's appeal and dismissed the suit. Held: Having heard learned counsel, I am satisfied that this appeal must be allowed. The finding reached by the first appellate Court suffers from a serious defect that it has failed to take into account that the defendants from the very beginning were not willing to execute a deed of re-conveyance in favour of the plaintiff on the plea that an area of 0.15 acre was not put in their possession. The defendant's attitude was that if the plaintiff wanted re-conveyances she should pay not only Rs. 1,000 but also damages to the defendants for not putting them in possession of 0.15 acre of the land. The first appellate Court has also not referred to the notices which were exchanged between the parties. These notices also show that it was on this ground that the defendants refused to re-convey the suit-land in favour of the plaintiff. 2. 1,000 but also damages to the defendants for not putting them in possession of 0.15 acre of the land. The first appellate Court has also not referred to the notices which were exchanged between the parties. These notices also show that it was on this ground that the defendants refused to re-convey the suit-land in favour of the plaintiff. 2. Exhibit P-2 is a notice which was issued by the plaintiff to the defendants on 15th January 1967. In this notice the plaintiff stated that she had collected Rs. 1,000 for payment to the defendants and that they should execute a deed of re-conveyance in her favour after receiving that money within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. This notice was received by the defendants on or about 13th January 1967. The notice Ex. P-2 was replied by the defendants by Ex. D-1 dated 13th January 1967. In this reply, the defendants dearly stated that unless the plaintiff paid damages for non-delivery of possession of 0.15 acre of land, the defendant's would not execute any deed of re-conveyance in favour of the plaintiff. The reply Ex. D-1 clearly shows that although the plaintiff offered Rs. 1,000 in accordance with the agreement for re-conveyance, the defendants were not willing to accept it. The plaintiff's case is that she came to Baihar where there is an office of the Sub-Registrar for again persuading the defendants to execute a deed of re-conveyance in her favour. In her statement she has stated that she came with Rs. 1,000 and she met defendant No. 1 who refused to execute a deed of re-conveyance on the plea that defendant No.2 was not available. Having regard to the background and the exchange of notices, in my opinion, the trial Court was right in believing the plaintiff and her witnesses on this point. Defendant No 1 admits that he came to Baihar on 4th February 1967, but denies to have met the plaintiff. The defendant's evidence on this point, having regard to the facts disclosed by the notices exchanged between the parties. does not appear to be true. The first appellate Court has doubted the statement of the plaintiff on a surmise that the plaintiff had no money to pay to the defendants. The plaintiff stated in her examination-in-chief that she had brought the money. does not appear to be true. The first appellate Court has doubted the statement of the plaintiff on a surmise that the plaintiff had no money to pay to the defendants. The plaintiff stated in her examination-in-chief that she had brought the money. No question was put in her cross-examination challenging that part of her statement. It was, therefore, not open to the first appellate Court to disbelieve the plaintiff on the point that she had arranged for the money and that she had actually brought Rs. 1,000/- for payment to the defendants on 4th February 1967. In proving readiness and willingness it is not necessary for the plaintiff to establish that the money was actually shown to the defendants. It is sufficient if evidence is produced that the plaintiff was ready with the money but the defendants refused to accept it. In the instant case, as pointed out earlier and as is clear from Ex. D.1 the defendants were not at all willing to accept Rs. 1,000 and to execute a deed of re-conveyance in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants issued another notice on 6th February 1967 in which they again reiterated their demand for damages to the extent of Rs. 500/- on the ground that they were not put in possession of 0.15 acre of land. The plaintiff replied to this notice by Ex. P-7 which was issued on 28th February 1967. She stated in this reply that she had gone to Baihar on 4th February 1967 for paying Rs. 1,000 to the defendants and for obtaining a deed of re-conveyance from them, and that defendant No. 1 refused to accept the money and to execute the deed. 3. Having considered the entire evidence, I am of opinion that the trial Court was right in holding that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement as required by the agreement for re-conveyance and that it were the defendants who committed the breach of the agreement. Suit decreed. Appeal allowed.