Judgment :- 1. Second defendant who purchased the plaint schedule property from the first defendant is the appellant. Plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale between him and the first defendant. Plaintiff contended that he and the first defendant had entered into an agreement Ext. A-1 on 8-12-1978, that he paid part payment of the consideration, that be was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement by paying the balance amount to the first defendant and that in total disregard of the agreement the first defendant sold the property to the second defendant. Second defendant's appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, Manjeri. 2. Main contention of the appellant is that the demand of the plaintiff for the specific performance of the agreement on his own terms in contravention of the very terms of the agreement does not tantamount to his readiness to perform his part of the agreement and therefore he is not entitled to a decree for specific performance. As per Ext. A-1 the first defendant had agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff. It shows that Rs. 2000/ was paid by the plaintiff to the first defendant on the date of the agreement. The agreement stipulates that the plaintiff has to pay Rs. 3,750/-more to the first defendant within 15 days from the date of agreement and if default occurred he will have to pay Rs. 4,000/-. The period fixed under the agreement was 45 days. Defendant contended that the amount was not offered by the plaintiff within 15 days and hence his liability was to pay Rs. 4,000/-as expressly stipulated in Ext. A-1 agreement and as the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement decree for specific performance cannot be granted. In other words, counsel contended that the plaintiff cannot unilaterally repudiate the terms of the agreement and insist upon the specific performance of the agreement en his own terms. Admittedly the balance amount was not paid within 15 days as stipulated in the agreement. As that was not done the first defendant is entitled to get Rs. 4,000/- as per Ext. A-1 agreement. 3. Plaintiff had only offered Rs 3750/-to the first defendant as could be seen from Ext. A-3 notice. It is mentioned in Ext. A-3 that be had kept ready with him Rs. As that was not done the first defendant is entitled to get Rs. 4,000/- as per Ext. A-1 agreement. 3. Plaintiff had only offered Rs 3750/-to the first defendant as could be seen from Ext. A-3 notice. It is mentioned in Ext. A-3 that be had kept ready with him Rs. 3,750/-and had approached the 1st defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour. Ext. A-3 concludes by stating that the first defendant should receive Rs. 3,750/-and execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. As the amount was not offered within 15 days as stipulated in Ext. A-1 agreement plaintiff could not have taken the stand in Ext. A-3 notice that he was liable to pay only Rs. 3,750/-at the balance sale consideration. 4. Plaintiff developed a further case that on 14-1-1979 a document was executed purporting to be the draft of the sale deed. That has been marked as Ext A-2. In Ext. A-3 notice there is no wishper about Ext. A-2. The scriber of Ext. A-2 was not examined. At any rate, the 1st defendant had nothing to do with Ext. A-2. It is hardly of any consequence so far as the plaintiff's case is concerned. In Para.6 of the plaint what has been stated is that the plaintiff had paid Rs. 2,000/-towards advance and that his liability is only to pay the balance amount of Rs. 3,750/-. In Para.7 of the plaint it is admitted that the parties had agreed to settle the transaction by paying Rs. 3,750/- and if the said amount was not paid within 15 days from the date of Ext. A-1 agreement the plaintiff will have to pay Rs. 4,000/-. The averments in Para.8 of the plaint that the plaintiff had agreed to pay only Rs. 3,750/-within 45 days is against the terms of the agreement. In Para.17 of the plaint it is reiterated that the first defendant has the liability to execute the sale deed pursuant to Ext. A-1 agreement as mentioned in Para.6 of the plaint. 5. The question to be considered is whether the demand by the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract on his own terms would tantamount to his readiness and willingness to perform the contract on its terms as required by law. A-1 agreement as mentioned in Para.6 of the plaint. 5. The question to be considered is whether the demand by the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract on his own terms would tantamount to his readiness and willingness to perform the contract on its terms as required by law. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that in the reliefs sought in the plaint it is specifically stated that the plaintiff is ready to pay Rs. 4,000/-te the first defendant and so the specific performance of the agreement has to be enforced. But it has to be noted chat in Ext. A-3 notice the plaintiff had expressed his readiness and willingness to pay Rs. 3,750/-only as against Rs. 4,000/-expressly provided for in Ext. A-1 agreement. Counsel for the defendant contended that as the plaintiff has not shown his continued readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract in accordance with its terms he cannot obviously bring a suit for specific performance. Counsel submitted that as per Ext. A-1 agreement the balance amount due to the first defendant was Rs. 4,000/- as the agreed amount of Rs. 3,750/-was not paid within 15 days, and hence the plaintiff was bound to pay Rs. 4,000/-as balance consideration and as he was not ready to pay it he could not insist for a decree for specific performance. 6. A plaintiff seeking decree for specific performance cannot modify the express terms in the agreement to his advantage and call upon the other party to execute the agreement for sale. In this case as against the express terms of payment of Rs. 4,000/- the plaintiff had only offered Rs. 3,750/- as evidenced by Ext. A-3 notice. In S. J. Silas v. C.J.B. Mohibeff (AIR 1954 T.C. 440) the Travancore Cochin High Court held that it is a negation of of plaintiff's obligation under the contract and this should itself entail dismissal of his suit where the plaintiff wanted the implementation of the contract not according to the terms contained therein but with the modifications be deemed proper and where the plaint itself disclosed that he was not willing to deposit the full amount due under it but such balance as remained after making the deduction he considered justifiable. It is settled law that in a case for specific performance of as agreement for sale the plaintiff must express his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the agreement without fail or any reservations. Ia Narinjen v. Muhammed Yunus (AIR 1932 Lahore 265) it is held as follows: "In order to obtain a relief by way of specie performance of a contract the plaintiff has first to allege and prove that he was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract from the date of the contract to the date of the suit, as the contract really was and not in the way he thought the contract to be." 7. Al the plaintiff was not prepared to pay the full price as agreed to by him to the defendant it has to be held that his readiness and willingness to have the contract performed as dictated by him is not the readiness cotemplated in the averments to be made by him in a suit for specific performance. The plaintiff having failed to offer the amount due from him under Ext. A-1 and as in Ext. A-3 notice he took a definite stand that he was only liable to pay Rs. 3,750/-it has to be necessarily held that he is not entitled to a decree for specific performance. As the recitals in the agreement affirmatively show that the parties had agreed to the payment of Rs. 4,000/-as balance sale consideration, if the amount of Rs. 3,750/-was not paid within 15 days of the agreement and as the plaintiff did not offer that amount when he issued Ext. A-3 notice and as he did not specifically express his willingness and readiness to pay the said amount is the plaint the only conclusion possible is is that he is not entitled to have a decree for specific performance of the agreement. 8. As admittedly the first defendant had received Rs. 2,000/- from the plaintiff he is liable to repay the said amount with interest to the plaintiff. Though a decree for specific performance is denied in favour of the plaintiff it is only just and fair that the first defendant is directed to return Rs. 2,000/- which he had received from the plaintiff as part of the sale consideration. It is hereby held that the plaintiff is entitled to obtain Rs. Though a decree for specific performance is denied in favour of the plaintiff it is only just and fair that the first defendant is directed to return Rs. 2,000/- which he had received from the plaintiff as part of the sale consideration. It is hereby held that the plaintiff is entitled to obtain Rs. 2,000/- with six percent interest thereon from the date of the suit from the first defendant. The judgment and decree of the courts below are modified accordingly. The second Appeal is allowed as stated above with no order as to costs, Allowed.