JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is a defendants second appeal in a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell certain land. 2. The plaintiffs case was that one Ram Das was the bhumidhar in possession of the land. He entered into an agreement to sell it in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 900/- out of which Rs. 60/- was received as advance for depositing 10 times the revenue in order to become a bhumidhar and the sum of Rs. 440/- was paid as further advance towards the price on 3rd January, 1966 at the time of the registration of the said agreement to sell before the Sub-Registrar. It was alleged that according to the agreement the sale was to be executed after completion of the consolidation operations in the village on receiving the balance amount of Rs. 400/- from the plaintiff. According to the agreement the plaintiff was required to serve a 15 days notice after the completion of the consolidation operation on the defendant requiring him to execute a sale-deed, but it appears that the plaintiff did not serve any such notice, instead he alleged that after the completion of the consolidation operations he went to Ram Das several limes but as he was ill, he promised to execute the sale-deed when he got well. However, he died on 7th November, 1966 before the sale-deed could be executed. The suit was filed against' the defendants who were said to be the legal representatives of Ram Das after serving them with a notice dated 8th November, 1966 on their refusal to do so. 3. The first defendant, who was the appellant in this Court and having died is now represented by his legal representatives admitted the fact of the agreement and that the defendants were the heirs of Ram Das but denied all other allegations. He alleged that according to the terms of the agreement the plaintiff should have got the sale-deed executed within a month of the end of the consolidation operations. It was further alleged that Ram Das died on 7th November, 1966 and on the date on which he died he had executed a will in favour of the first defendant and had also served a notice on the plaintiff through counsel revoking the agreement and offering to refund the amount of advance paid at the time of its execution. 4. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant I am satisfied that specific performance of the agreement by compelling the defendants to execute the sale-deed in respect of the land in suit could not have been granted in this case. The agreement specifically provided that Ram Das who was the first party to the agreement would within one month of the completion of the consolidation operations execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff, who was the second party thereto; and further provided that in case for some reason the first party, namely Ram Das did not get a sale-deed executed in favour of the second party, the plaintiff, then in that case, the second party would have the right to serve a 15 days notice on the first party and after depositing the sum of Rs. 400/- in a court of competent jurisdiction, to have the sale-deed executed by the first party provided that in case on account of some legal defects the second party was unable to have the sale-deed executed and the first party does not refund the advance then in that case the first party will have the right to have the advance refunded with interest at one per cent per mensem from the date of the agreement. 5. It is plain from the fact that the plaintiff did not serve the required 15 days notice on Ram Das on the expiry of one month from the end of the consolidation operations, that he was not ready or willing to perform his part under the contract. It is not known from the allegations in the plaint as to when the consolidation operations came to an end, but it does appear from the allegations that the plaintiff went to Ram Das several times within one month of the end of the consolidation operations with the amount of Rs. 400/- for having the sale-deed executed and registered, that the consolidation operations must have come to an end quite some time before the death of Ram Das on 7th November, 1966. The fact remains that Ram Das revoked the contract by notice dated 7th November, 1966 served by him through counsel. The question is whether Ram Das was entitled to so revoke the contract. The fact remains that Ram Das revoked the contract by notice dated 7th November, 1966 served by him through counsel. The question is whether Ram Das was entitled to so revoke the contract. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the notice had not been served by Ram Das, but the notice having been served and signed by the counsel Shri Muhammad Idris Quraish, Advocate, his statement in the notice that he had served it under the instructions of his client Ram Das could not be challenged, and one has to proceed on the basis that the notice was in fact served by Ram Das. Indeed in view of the will executed on that very date and the fact that Ram Das died thereafter on the same day, the service of the notice appears to have been a very proper action on the part of Ram Das who probably had a premonition that; he was going to die soon and having made a will of his property in favour of the defendants, he did not want the property to be burdened with the liability of a registered contract to sell the property- He accordingly revoked the contract and offered to refund the amount of advance. The question is whether he was entitled to revoke the contract when he purported to do so. The terms of the contract showed that in case the sale-deed was not executed within one month of the completion of the consolidation operations, the plaintiff could have it executed by serving a 15 days notice and in case Ram Das failed to execute it even in spite of the notice, to have it executed by suit. The service of the notice was an essential condition. The plaintiff not having served any such notice even after the expiry of one month from the date on which the consolidation operations came to an end, the allegations made in the notice dated 7th November, 1966 appear to be probably true. The allegations were that the plain-tiff was no longer interested in having the sale-deed executed. In any case there is: no averment in the plaint that the plaintiff was at all times ready and willing to perform his part of the contract which is a must under Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act. The defect is fatal and the suit for specific performance could not have been decreed. In any case there is: no averment in the plaint that the plaintiff was at all times ready and willing to perform his part of the contract which is a must under Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act. The defect is fatal and the suit for specific performance could not have been decreed. See Mahammed Khan v. Ayub Khan, ( AIR 1978 All 463 ). 6. At this stage, in view of the fact that Ram Das had revoked the agreement and had offered to refund the advance received by him, I put it to the learned counsel lor fhe defendant-appellant whether the defendant-appellant would be willing to refound the amount of Rs. 500/-received by Ram Das at the time of the execution of the agreement to sell along with interest of one per cent per mensem from the date of the agreement up to the date of payment without the necessity of a fresh suit for the same by the plaintiff. Mr. R. p. Agarwal, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant thereupon stated on his behalf that he was willing to do so. He however, added that the amount of Rs- 500/-, which was required to be refunded, may be adjusted from out of the amount deposited by the defendant-appellant in pursuance of the interim order of this court dated 11th January, 1971 and the interest thereon may be adjusted from out of the amount deposited by him at the rate of Rs. 100/- per year towards the mesne profits in pursuance of the said order and that in case the amount of mesne profits so deposited exceeds the total amount of interest payable, the excess may be refunded to him. The offer was extremely fair and the learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent willingly accepted the same. 7. I, therefore, allow the appeal set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. Instead the suit is decreed for recovery of Rs. 500/- with interest thereon at one per cent per mensem from 3rd January, 1966 to the date of the deposit made by the defendant-appellant in pursuance of the interim order of this Court dated 11th January, 1971. The amount of interest up to that date shall also be adjusted in so far as it extends from out of the amount of mesne profit's deposited by the defendant-appellant at the rate of Rs. The amount of interest up to that date shall also be adjusted in so far as it extends from out of the amount of mesne profit's deposited by the defendant-appellant at the rate of Rs. 100/- per year under the said interim order. In case the amount of mesne profits deposited is less than the amount of interest the balance shall be recoverable by the plaintiff-respondent from the defendant-appellants legal representatives, and in case the amount of mesne profits so deposited exceeds the amount of interest, the excess shall be refunded to the legal representatives of the defendant-appellant. In the circumstances the parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout.