JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs against the decree dated 11th March 1970 passed by the Civil Judge, Ghazipur whereby. original suit No. 24 of 1968 filed by them for specific performance of an agreement of sale said to have been executed on 6th Dec, 1967 by one Umarao alias Umar Misra and in the alternative for the recovery of Rs. 10,000/- said to have been paid as earnest money at the time of the execution of the aforesaid agreement was dismissed. According to the appellants Umrao alias Umar Misra in spite of having executed the aforesaid agreement and accepting Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money subsequently executed a gift deed on 17th June, 1968 in favour of defendant-respondents 2 to 5. Umarao alias Umar Misra and defendants 2 to 5 contested the suit inter alia on the ground that the agreement relied on by the plaintiff appellants had never been executed by Umrao alias Umar Misra nor had the sum of Rs. 10,000/- been paid to him. The trial court in dismissing the suit accepted the case of the defendant-respondents and held that the appellants had failed to establish that any agreement as asserted by them had been executed by Umrao alias Umar Misra on 6th Dec, 1967 or that any amount was advanced by them as earnest money. 2. It has been urged by counsel for the appellants that on the evidence on record it was clearly established that the agreement relied on by the appellants had been executed by Umrao alias Umar Misra and that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- had been paid to him by the appellants as earnest money and the view taken to the contrary by the trial court was erroneous. it has been asserted that the trial court having come to the conclusion that the defendant respondents had failed to establish that thumb impressions of Umrao alias Umar Misra had forcibly been obtained by the appellants on certain blank papers the case of the appellants in regard to the execution of the agreement for sale by Umrao alias Umar Misra and payment of Rs. 10,000/- as earliest money to him by the appellants had to be accepted by the trial court and it committed an error in not doing so. 3. 10,000/- as earliest money to him by the appellants had to be accepted by the trial court and it committed an error in not doing so. 3. Having heard counsel for the parties we are of opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the decree passed by the trial court and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The question as to whether Umrao alias Umar Misra had executed the alleged agreement of 6th Dec. 1967 as well as the question as to whether a sum of Rs. 10,000/- had been paid to him as earnest money on that date is essentially a question of fact which is to be determined on the evidence produced by the parties. Even if it is accepted that the defendant-respondents had failed to establish that thumb impressions of Umrao alias Umar Misra had been forcibly obtained by the appellants on certain blank papers it does not, in our opinion, have any material bearing on the question referred to above inasmuch as nothing on the record has been shown by counsel for the appellants to indicate that there was any admission by Umrao alias Umar Misra that his thumb impressions had been obtained by the appellants on the stamp paper on which the agreement in question has been scribed. Simply because the appellants may not have forcibly obtained the thumb impressions of Umarao alias Umar Misra on certain blank papers it cannot be said that the agreement in question had been proved to have been executed by Umrao alias Umar Misra. The trial court has disbelieved the witnesses produced by the appellants in support of their case and has preferred to rely on the statements of the witnesses produced by the defendant-respondents. It has given cogent reasons for disbelieving the case of the appellants and we find no good ground to take a contrary view. Since we agree with those reasons it is not necessary to reiterate them here. 4. It has been urged by counsel for the appellants that the circumstance that the witnesses produced by the appellants were established to be interested witnesses seems to have influenced the mind of the learned judge of the court below to a considerable extent. According to him this circumstance alone was not conclusive to discard the statements of the appellants' witnesses. It has been urged by counsel for the appellants that the circumstance that the witnesses produced by the appellants were established to be interested witnesses seems to have influenced the mind of the learned judge of the court below to a considerable extent. According to him this circumstance alone was not conclusive to discard the statements of the appellants' witnesses. Having gone through the judgment of the trial court we find it difficult to take the view that the statements of the plaintiffs' witnesses have been discarded only on this ground. 5. We have gone through the evidence of the parties which has been placed before us and are of opinion that the appellants have failed to establish that Umrao alias Umar Misra had executed the agreement dated 6th Dec. 1967 or that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- had been paid to him as earnest money as asserted by the appellants. The parties are residents of village Malikpur, Pargana Saidpur, District Ghazipur. Prabhunath Misra PW.1 is plaintiff appellant No. 2 before us. He has stated that Saidpur was at a distance of about two miles from Malikpur and that there was a Sub-Registrar's office at Saidpur. He has further stated that there was also Tehsil at Saidpur and Mukhtars practising in the court and Deed Writers were available there. The agreement is said to have been executed at Ghazipur and on being asked as to why it was not got executed at Saidpur when every facility was available there, Prabhunath Misra stated that since Rs. 10,000/- was paid. as earnest money be thought it appropriate to get the agreement executed at Ghazipur so that he may be in a position to consult some good Vakil. It has been stated by him that he along with Umrao Misra, Ram Subh Misra, PW. 2, Raj Narain Singh PW. 4 and Rambali had gone to Ghazipur on a bus on 6-12-1967 and had reached there at about 8 or 8-30 A.M. He has further stated that Umrao, Raj Narain and Rambali after alighting from the bus went to the court whereas he along with Ramsukh went to the residence of Babu Kalpnath Singh Vakil to consult him about the agreement. He has further stated that the draft of the agreement was dictated by Babu Kalpnath Singh and was written by Ramsukh. According to him it was thereafter that he along. He has further stated that the draft of the agreement was dictated by Babu Kalpnath Singh and was written by Ramsukh. According to him it was thereafter that he along. with Ramsukh went to the court where the agreement was scribed. Vishwanath Singh one of the witnesses of the agreement is said to have met him in the court compound itself. He feigns ignorance of the fact as to whether Vishwanath Singh was present or not at the place where the draft of the agreement was written but he has categorically stated that at the place where the agreement was scribed by Ramsukh Misra he was present. Almost to the same effect is the statement of Ramsukh Misra PW. 2 also. At this place it may be pointed out that on the basis of the gift deed executed by Umrao Misra on 17th June, 1968, in their favour respondents 2 to 5 had moved an application for mutation of their names over the properties gifted to them. That application was opposed by the appellants and they had produced in support of their case Vishwa Nath Singh Pradhan of village Malikpur who was also one of the witnesses to the agreement dated 6th Dec. 1967 as already stated above. He has, for reasons which will be obvious shortly, not been produced by the appellants in the present suit. A copy of the statement of Vishwa Nath Singh made in the mutation case has been filed as Ex. B-20 and its perusal indicates that he has categorically stated therein that the agreement in question was executed at the residence of Babu Kalpnath Singh Vakil and that at the time when the agreement was executed he as well as Babu Kalpnath Singh were both present. He further states that he had seen Umrao Misra also at the residence of Babu Kalpnath Singh. Being one of the witnesses to the agreement he seems to have made an effort to demonstrate himself to be an uninterested person by stating that he had not gone to Ghazipur along with others but had gone there in connection with a case. However, on being asked to give the particulars of the case in connection with which he asserted to have gone to Ghazipur, he failed to do so. Prabhu Nath Misra PW. However, on being asked to give the particulars of the case in connection with which he asserted to have gone to Ghazipur, he failed to do so. Prabhu Nath Misra PW. 1, having stated that Babu Kalpnath Singh was not present at the place where the agreement was executed in the court compound, had further to state apparently in order to be consistent, that the sum of Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money was not paid to Umrao Misra in the presence of Babu Kalpnath Singh - his case being that the aforesaid amount was paid-dtto Umrao Misra at the time of execution of the agreement. Vishwanath Singh having admitted in the mutation case, as seen above, that the agreement was executed at the residence of Babu Kalpnath Singh Vakil in his presence and that Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money was paid to Umrao Misra at the time of execution of the agreement at the residence of Babu Kalpnath Singh, there seems to be no doubt that the testimony of Babu Kalpnath Singh Vakil, who would apparently have been an uninterested and a respectable witness, was most significant to prove the case of the appellants had it been true. For reasons best known to the appellants they have not produced him as a witness to support their case. From the testimony of PW. 1 and PW. 2 as pointed out above, it is apparent that Umrao Misra had not even gone to the residence of Babu Kalpnath Singh Vakil and it is Prabhunath Misra PW. 1 who along with Ramsukh Misra PW. 2 had gone to his residence to consult him and to get the draft of the agreement prepared. According to PW. 1 the draft of the agreement was actually dictated by Babu Kalpnath Singh. Obviously on the own case set up by Prabhunath Misra PW. 1 Babu Kalpnath Singh Vakil was a man of his confidence and not of Umrao Misra. Consequently there should have been no difficulty for Prabhunath Misra PW. 1 to have produced Babu Kalpnath Singh as a witness in support of his case. 6. In Raghavamma v. Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC 136 it was held that where all the relevant documents admitted to have been in existence had not been placed before the Court by the appellant an adverse inference had to be drawn against him. 1 to have produced Babu Kalpnath Singh as a witness in support of his case. 6. In Raghavamma v. Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC 136 it was held that where all the relevant documents admitted to have been in existence had not been placed before the Court by the appellant an adverse inference had to be drawn against him. This legal position was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Gopal Krishnaji v. Mohd. Haji Latif, AIR 1968 SC 1413 where it was held that if a party in possession of best evidence which would throw light on the issue withholds it the Court ought to draw an adverse inference against him notwithstanding that onus of proof does not lie on him. It was further held that such party cannot rely on the abstract doctrine of onus of proof or on the fact that he was not called upon to produce it. 7. The appellants not only failed to produce a very vital witness namely, Babu Kalpnath Singh Vakil in support of their-case, they chose to set up a case, presumably in order to cover up their inability not to produce Babu Kalpnath Singh, that neither Babu Kalpnath Singh was present at the time when the agreement was executed nor was the earnest money paid in his presence as is apparent from the deposition of Prabhunath Misra PW.1, already pointed out above. This case is apparently inconsistent with the facts stated by Vishwanath Singh one of the witnesses to the agreement in his deposition in the mutation case. And apparently it was to avoid any further inconsistency that Vishwanath Singh also was not produced as a witness in the present suit. 8. Prabhunath Misra PW. 1 has further stated in his deposition that Umrao Misra had told him that he was taking Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money in order to pay off debts. He goes on to state that the fact that Umrao was indebted was known to him from before. Indeed, he also gave the names of the creditors of Umrao in his deposition. The creditors of Umrao according to this witness, were Kunj Behari Singh, Gulab Singh and Kripashakar Singh. He has also disclosed the addresses of these creditors. He goes on to state that the fact that Umrao was indebted was known to him from before. Indeed, he also gave the names of the creditors of Umrao in his deposition. The creditors of Umrao according to this witness, were Kunj Behari Singh, Gulab Singh and Kripashakar Singh. He has also disclosed the addresses of these creditors. Notwithstanding the fact that the execution of the agreement and receipt of any earnest money was specifically denied by the defendants including Umrao Misra, the appellants for reasons best known to them did not produce any of the creditors as a witness to prove that Umrao Misra was indebted to them. Adverse inference against the appellants has to be drawn for this conduct of theirs also. 9. Even though legal advice was available even at Saidpur where is situated the Court of the Tehsildar as well as the office of a Sub-Registrar and Saidpur was only at a distance of two miles from the village where the parties resided as admitted by Prabhunath Misra PW. I he thought it fit to get the agreement executed not at Saidpur but at Ghazipur inasmuch as a big sum of Rs. 10,000/- was to be paid as earnest money. Accepting the deposition of Prabhunath Misra PW. 1 on this point on its face value it is apparent that the largeness of the amount of earnest money to be paid was heavily weighing upon him. Even so he neither chose to get the agreement registered and pay the earnest money before the Sub-Registrar nor even to obtain a separate receipt for such a big amount from Umrao Misra. It is true that at that time an agreement to sell was not compulsorily registrable but keeping in view the importance which Prabhunath Misra was attaching to the amount of earnest money and his conduct of going to Ghazipur for that reason normally required that either he should have got the agreement registered and paid the earnest money before the Sub-Registrar or at any rate should have obtained a separate receipt also for the amount of the earnest money. The conduct of Prabhunath Misra in not doing so also militates against the case set up by him. 10. Again, according to Prabhunath Misra P. W. 1 the agreement was executed in the eastern block of the Civil Court compound and that the courts were open on that day. The conduct of Prabhunath Misra in not doing so also militates against the case set up by him. 10. Again, according to Prabhunath Misra P. W. 1 the agreement was executed in the eastern block of the Civil Court compound and that the courts were open on that day. The office of a Sub-Registrar is also there at Ghazipur and it being a working day the clerks of advocates and deed writers would have been present in fairly a good number. Nothing cogent has been brought to our notice to indicate as to why the services of none of them was availed of to get the agreement scribed and preference was given for this purpose to Ramsukh Misra P. W. 2 who had to admit in his cross-examination that he was incapable of preparing a draft of an agreement of sale. In this connection it may be pointed out that Baijnath D. W. 3 has stated that there was partibandi in his village Malikpur and that Ramsukh Misra was in the party of the plaintiffs. In his cross-examination Ramsukh Misra P. W. 2 had to admit that he along with his father Nakchhed Misra had been prosecuted for an offence of murder. On a specific question being put in this behalf he however stated that he did not remember as to whether Sahdeo Misra uncle of the defendants had appeared as a witness in that case or not. 11. Ramnath Misra P. W. 3 has also stated that at the place where the agreement was being executed Sri Kalpnath Singh Vakil was not present nor was he present at the time when the sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid as earnest money. This statement, as already seen above, is inconsistent with the statement in the mutation case of Vishwanath Singh the other witness and no reliance can be placed thereon. In so far as Raj Narain Singh, P. W. 4 is concerned he has given quite inconsistent statements in his cross-examination and on being asked as to which of the two statements was correct, he had to admit that the first statement made by him referred to therein was false. In so far as Raj Narain Singh, P. W. 4 is concerned he has given quite inconsistent statements in his cross-examination and on being asked as to which of the two statements was correct, he had to admit that the first statement made by him referred to therein was false. Further even this witness has stated contrary to what Vishwanath Singh has stated in his deposition in the mutation case that at the place where the agreement was executed and the earnest money paid Babu Kalpnath Singh Vakil was not present. 12. This constitutes the entire evidence of course apart from the agreement D/- 6-12-1967, about the execution of the said agreement and payment of Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money. It is for the reasons stated above as also those given by the trial court that we are of opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that Umrao alias Umar Misra had executed the agreement in question on 6th December, 1967 or that any earnest money was paid to him on that date and the appellants suit has been rightly dismissed. 13. In view of the aforesaid finding no exception can be taken to the decree passed by the trial court. However, since the matter has been argued before us we proceed to record another reason on account of which the suit in so far as it relates to the relief for specific performance of the agreement dated 6th Dec., 1967 cannot be decreed. Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Prem Raj v. D.L.F.H. & Co. Ltd., AIR 1968 SC 1355 and Ouseph Varghese v. Joseph Aley, 1969 (3) SCC 539 it was held by a Division Bench of this Court in Narendra Bahadur Singh v. Baijnath Singh, AIR 1981 All 410 that the provision contained in S. 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is mandatory. In specific terms it lays down 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. The requirement of law is two fold (i) that the plaintiff must aver in the plaint and (ii) that he must prove by evidence that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The requirement of law is two fold (i) that the plaintiff must aver in the plaint and (ii) that he must prove by evidence that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff cannot be allowed to succeed if he fails to fulfil any of the two obligations enjoined by law. In the instant case omission of the averment in the plaint that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract rendered the plaint without a cause of action for a suit for specific performance and the suit for that relief must fail. Almost the same view was taken by this Court in R.P. Rai v. Rajdeva Rai, AIR 1974 All 294 , Sankatha Prasad v. Abdul Aziz Khan, AIR 1976 All 95 , Manohar Lal v. Rajeshwari Devi, AIR 1977 All 36 and Mahmood Khan v. Ayub Khan, AIR 1978 All 463 . The only allegation in this behalf which has been made in the plaint is contained in para 6 thereof which translated into English reads thus : "That we the plaintiffs asked the defendant first set several times to execute the sale deed that he continued to prevaricate. At last the plaintiffs gave a registered notice D/- 19-7-1968 with acknowledgement due in which they mac it clear that the defendant first set should execute the sale deed in their favour within a week and that the said notice was refused by him on 20-7-1968". At this place it may be pointed out that Umrao alias Umar Misra had been arrayed as defendant 1st set in the plaint. Almost similar averments in some of the cases referred to above were found to be lacking in compliance with the requirements of S. 16 (c). We are also of the opinion that the averments referred to above contained in para 6 fail to fulfil the requirements of S. 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act and the suit for specific performance of the agreement is liable to be dismissed on this ground also. In this connection it may further be pointed out that the appellants have not cared even to prove the registered notice D/- 20th July, 1968, referred to in para 6 of the plaint. 14. In this connection it may further be pointed out that the appellants have not cared even to prove the registered notice D/- 20th July, 1968, referred to in para 6 of the plaint. 14. Counsel for the appellants has urged that since before the institution of the suit the defendant 1st set had already executed a gift deed on 17th June, 1968 in favour of the defendants find set in respect of the properties which were the subject matter of the agreement in question it was futile for the appellants to make an averment in the plaint that they were still willing to perform their part of the agreement. We find no substance in this submission. The mere fact that a subsequent transfer has been made does not by itself disentitle the person in whose favour an agreement of sale exists to assert and enforce his right to get the property which is subject matter of the agreement sold in his favour. The settled law on the point is that in such a situation what the plaintiff to a suit for specific performance of an agreement has to do is that he should implead the subsequent transferee also as defendant in the suit with a prayer to direct him also to execute the sale deed along with the person who entered into the agreement which constitutes the basis of the suit. Since the procedure to compel specific performance of the agreement of sale notwithstanding a subsequent transfer is to institute a suit in the manner stated above the obligation of the plaintiff to such a suit to make the necessary averment in their plaint as contemplated by S. 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act is in no way affected and a suit filed by them without making the necessary averments in this behalf in the plaint is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.