JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal. It arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 13-10-1964. The trial court decreed the suit. However, the lower appellate court dismissed it. 2. The plaintiff's case was that defendant, who is the owner of half of the share in certain plots, entered into an agreement of sale of the same for a sum of Rs. 3023.30. The defendant was also paid a sum of Rs. 323.30 to cover up the amount to be deposited by her as ten times of the annual land revenue of the said plot so as to acquire Bhumidhari rights. This payment was made on 13-10-1964. A sum of Rs. 500/- was also advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant as earnest money. The agreement provided that the sale deed was to be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff within two months from the date of issuance of Bhumidhari Sanad. It was also provided in the agreement that the defendant would inform the plaintiff of the order granting Bhumidhari Sanad. It was further agreed that the agreement of sale would be kept with one Syed Mohammad Zaheer Hasan, in whom the parties had complete faith. The defendant did not inform the plaintiff of the order of the Tahsildar granting Bhumidari Sanad in her favour. On enquiry it transpired to the plaintiff that the Bhumidari Sanad had been granted on 16-12-1964 hence on 15-2-1965 a registered notice was served by the plaintiff upon the defendant to execute the sale deed after accepting balance sum of Rs. 2200/- from the plaintiff. No reply was sent by the defendant. The plaintiff obtained the agreement of sale from Syed Mohammad Zaheer Hasan. On obtaining the same, he discovered that a portion of the agreement had been smudged by throwing ink over it. He made enquiries from Syed Mohammad Zaheer Hasan and learnt that one Syed Agha Aidalpuri had taken away the agreement from Syed Mohammad Zaheer Hasan for copying out the same and that is how the ink was thrown over the relevant portion of the document. The defendant was in collusion with Syed Agha Aidalpuri. 3. The defence taken was that the defendant at no stage, had been paid Rs. 500/- as earnest money. The defendant was only paid a sum of Rs. The defendant was in collusion with Syed Agha Aidalpuri. 3. The defence taken was that the defendant at no stage, had been paid Rs. 500/- as earnest money. The defendant was only paid a sum of Rs. 323.30 as loan for payment of ten times of the land revenue. The defendant was to execute a sale deed within two months from the date of issuance of Bhumidari Sanad after accepting a sum of Rs. 3023.30. It was also agreed that if on the expiry of a period of two months the sale deed was not executed the sum of Rs. 323.30 will be forfeited and the agreement of sale would be rendered infructuous. The plaintiff failed to collect the necessary funds, which were to be paid to the defendant towards the sale money. Two months elapsed because of the fault of the plaintiff, hence the suit was not maintainable. It was specifically alleged that no agreement of sale with Syed Mohammad Zaheer Hasan was arrived at. It was incorrect to say that the ink had been smeared over by Syed Agha Aidalpuri. Syed Mohammad Zaheer Hasan was a close relation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff himself made material alterations in the document. 4. The trial court after framing necessary issues decreed the suit. The defendant preferred an appeal. Which was allowed by the then Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad. The appellate court decreed the suit in part it directed the defendant to refund a sum of Rs. 500/- to the plaintiff. It, however did not grant the relief of specific performance of contract. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff came up to this court by way of a second appeal. This court on 9-4-1971 allowed the same and directed a rehearing of the appeal by the Additional Civil Judge after recording findings on all the issues. This court also directed the lower appellate court to get the agreement of sale examined by a Government expert with regard to the ink smudged portion of the same by subjecting it (the document) to ultra violate process. The document was sent to the Government expert. He opined that the portion over which the ink had been smeared was not decipherable. 5. The lower appellate court has recorded in main three findings. The document was sent to the Government expert. He opined that the portion over which the ink had been smeared was not decipherable. 5. The lower appellate court has recorded in main three findings. They are (i) the agreement of sale was not kept by the parties with Syed Mohammad Zaheer Hasan, (ii) Since the smudged portion of the document was not decipherable, it could not be said that the agreement to sale had come into existence and (iii) in any view of the matter the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of specific performance, as he failed to make necessary averments in the plaint as envisaged under Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act. 6. An application has been made in this Court seeking amendment of the plaint. By the proposed amendment the lacuna in the plaint is sought to be filled up by making necessary allegations to meet the requirement of section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act. 7. I have gone through the record of the case. The first two findings are basically findings of fact. If the contents of the document are not decipherable the plaintiff cannot succeed in getting the relief of injunction against the defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour on the basis of the agreement which had admittedly smudged with ink. It has also to be remembered that the lower appellate court has not accepted the theory set up by the plaintiff that the document had been obtained by Syed Agha Aidalpuri from Syed Mohammad Zaheer Hasan for copying out its contents. Moreover, as already stated, the Court has not accepted the case of the plaintiff that the document was kept in the custody of Syed Mohammad Zaheer Hasan. Once it is found as a fact that neither the document was kept with Syed Mohammad Zaheer Hasan nor was obtained by Syed Agha Aidalpuri, the bottom of the case of the plaintiff is knocked off. 8. As regards the non-compliance of Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act the lower appellate court is right in taking the view that no express or implied averment had been made in the plaint stating therein that the plaintiff was all along ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. This, in my opinion, is a fatal defect in the plaint. This, in my opinion, is a fatal defect in the plaint. This defect cannot be allowed to be removed. Admittedly the suit became barred by time. As already stated, even on merits the findings of fact on record are against the plaintiff. It is to be stated that the original plaintiff has died and the application for amendment of the plaint was made by his heir, who has been brought on record. 9. All told, there is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed with costs.