Judgment :- Appellants are defendants 2 and 3. First respondent - plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of Ext. Al agreement entered into between him and first defendant. First defendant while admitting the agreement disputed its validity on the ground that it was executed without realising its full implications. Defendants 2 and 3 contended that they were not aware of Ext. Al agreement and they arc bona fide purchasers of the property for valuable consideration. Sub Judge on considering the evidence held that Ext. Al is not vitiated by fraud as alleged by the 1st defendant. Decree for specific performance was not granted in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that there was dispute with regard to the balance sale consideration due to the first defendant. Sub Judge held that defendants 2 and 3 arc not bonafide purchasers of the property. Disallowance of the claim for specific performance was reversed and plaintiff was granted decree for specific performance by the District Judge in the plaintiff's appeal. 2. Contention of the defendants is that the pleadings in the plaint do not disclose plaintiff's readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration and as the plaintiff himself has raised a dispute with regard to Rs. 600/- it is apparent that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying the entire balance sale consideration and so the trial Court was justified in refusing to grant decree for specific performance. On the other hand contention of she plaintiff is that though he has a case that he had paid Rs. 600/- on 10-1-1977 to 1st defendant towards balance consideration i.e. after the agreement, he is willing to deposit whatever amount is found due as the balance consideration by the Court and in view of the averment it cannot be held that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 3. As per Ext. A-1 agreement plaintiff had to pay Rs. 7,000/- to the 1st defendant as balance consideration. He has alleged that Rs. 600/- was paid to 1st defendant on 10-1-1977. Ext. A-6 notice was issued by plaintiff calling upon 1st defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour and in that notice payment of Rs.600/- to the 1st defendant was mentioned. In the reply notice first defendant denied receipt of Rs. 600/- as alleged by plaintiff. He has alleged that Rs. 600/- was paid to 1st defendant on 10-1-1977. Ext. A-6 notice was issued by plaintiff calling upon 1st defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour and in that notice payment of Rs.600/- to the 1st defendant was mentioned. In the reply notice first defendant denied receipt of Rs. 600/- as alleged by plaintiff. In view of the denial, plaintiff averred in the plaint the foci of payment of Rs. 600/- and also maintained the stand that he is ready to pay the said amount also if the Court finds that he 'is liable to pay the same. 4. Merely because 1st defendant denied the receipt of Rs. 600/- and there was dispute with regard to the same it cannot be held that plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as it is stated in categorie terms that he is ready to pay the amount in the Court once the controversy is resolved. In a situation like this such a stand alone is possible for the plaintiff as settlement of the rival claims can be effected only by the Court. So the averments to that effect does not in any manner militate against the necessary pleadings in a suit for specific performance. Though the plaintiff has put forward his own case he clarified that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in accordance with the eventual decision of the Court. When the plaintiff has stated so it would certainly amount to sufficient averment of his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. 5. Certainly in a suit for specific performance plaintiff has to allege that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. But in a case where plaintiff has alleged part payment of the sale consideration after the agreement and merely because it is disputed by the defendants it is not incumbent upon the plaintiff to offer whole amount mentioned in the agreement. As the Court has necessarily to decide the dispute and as the plaintiff has stated his readiness to abide by the Court's decision it has to be held that sufficient averments are there in the plaint justifying decree for specific performance. As the Court has necessarily to decide the dispute and as the plaintiff has stated his readiness to abide by the Court's decision it has to be held that sufficient averments are there in the plaint justifying decree for specific performance. In Ramesh Chandra v. Chuni Lai (AIR 1971 SC 1238 at 1242) the Supreme Court held: "Readiness and willingness cannot be treated as a strait jacket formula. These have to be determined from the entirety of facts and circumstances relevant to the intention and conduct of the party concerned". Learned District Judge was justified in decreeing the suit for specific performance. 6. The trial Court on consideration of evidence held that defendants 2 and 3 are not bona fide purchasers of the property from the 1st defendant and that they were aware of Ext. Al agreement. Evidence of the 1st defendant (D.W.I) reveals that defendants 2 and 3 demanded title deeds of the property and he told them that they were handed over to the plaintiff. D.W.I deposed that he told them that the title deeds were handed over to the plaintiff as he wanted to raise money. D.W.3 (3rd defendant) admitted in her evidence that she was aware of the title deeds with the plaintiff at the time of assignment in her favour. Even then defendants 2 and 3 never bothered to make any enquiry with the plaintiff. 7. Mere denial of Ext. Al agreement would not be sufficient to hold that defendants 2 and 3 purchased the property unaware of Ext. Al agreement. The burden of showing that they purchased the property bonafide and without notice of Ext. Al agreement is squarely upon them. As circumstances in the case reflect no bonafides on the part of the subsequent purchasers their bald denial of any knowledge about Ext. Al would not advance their case. For the forgoing reasons judgment and decree of the District Judge are confirmed. The Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.