JUDGMENT 1. This is a first appeal by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') against the judgment and decree dated 26.10.1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi by which the suit filed by the plaintiff against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') for specific performance of the agreement dated 2.4.1976 (Ex. 1) was dismissed.Note That during the pendency of this appeal, the defendant No. 1 Basti Mal died and his Legal Representatives were taken on record. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:- The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against the defendants on 21.3.1979 alleging that the original defendant No. 1 Basti Mal (now died) agreed to sell a plot No. 10-H situated in Veer Durga Das Nagar, Pali to the plaintiff on 2.4.1976 through agreement (Ex. 1) for Rs. 17,551/- and on the same day, the plaintiff paid to the defendant No. 1 Rs. 2,001/-. It was agreed between the parties that rest of the amount of Rs. 15,550/- would be paid by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 at the time of registration and the registered sale would be executed before 2.5.1976. It was further agreed that in case the clearance certificate either from the Municipality or UIT is required, the same would be obtained by the defendant No. 1. It was further agreed that in case the defendant No. 1 could not get the sale deed registered, the defendant No. 1 would pay to the plaintiff doubt amount of the advance money. It is further alleged that the defendant No. 1 had not obtained the clearance certificate as in the original patta Ex. D-1, there were two conditions (3) and (4) and according to these conditions, if the house was not constricted by the defendant No. 1 within two years from the date of the purchase i.e. 4.6.1964 the patta could be cancelled by the Municipality and possession can be taken back. Since the defendant No. 1 has not complied with the condition Nos. (3) and (4) of the patta (Ex. D-1) issued in his favour, the plaintiff was very much worried and wanted a clear title and that is why he pressed for clearance certificate, for which the defendant No. 1 did not care at all, despite several letters issued to him by the plaintiff. (3) and (4) of the patta (Ex. D-1) issued in his favour, the plaintiff was very much worried and wanted a clear title and that is why he pressed for clearance certificate, for which the defendant No. 1 did not care at all, despite several letters issued to him by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also wrote letters to the defendant No. 2 and sought explanation from the Municipality about the title of the defendant No. 1, but the defendant No. 2 did not reply at all. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform the terms of the agreement but it was the defendant No. 1, who did not pay any heed and because of the fault on the part of the defendant No. 1, the said agreement (Ex. 1) could not be executed. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit against the defendants for specific performance of agreement Ex. 1 and further, alternatively, it was prayed by the plaintiff that Rs. 2,901/- (sic. 2001/-) be refunded to the plaintiff alongwith the interest etc. etc. 3. The suit of the plaintiff was contested by the defendant No. 1 by filing a written statement on 5.5.1979 before the lower court stating that it was the duty of the plaintiff to purchase stamps of registry, which he has failed to do so and the defendant No. 1 had always been ready to get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff did not care at all and that the title of the defendant No. 1 was clear and the plaintiff on one or the other pretext always wasted his time asking for a clearance certificate and, therefore, the suit be dismissed. 4. The defendant No. 2 also filed written statement on 21.9.1979. 5. From the pleading of the parties, the learned lower court framed the following issues on 22.7.1981:- 6. In the lower court, six witnesses were examined by the plaintiff and one witness was examined by the defendant No. 1. Some documents were got exhibited by both the parties. 7. After hearing and considering the evidence led by both the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi by his judgment and decree dated 26. 10.1993 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has filed this appeal before this Court.8. Some documents were got exhibited by both the parties. 7. After hearing and considering the evidence led by both the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi by his judgment and decree dated 26. 10.1993 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has filed this appeal before this Court.8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has assailed the findings of the lower court mainly on issue Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. 9. Before proceeding further, it would be worthwhile to state here as to how the learned lower court has decided the above issues. Issue No. 9 10. The learned lower court, while deciding this issue held that the following ibarat C to D of the agreement Ex. 1, which pertains to measurement of the plot was added later on by the plaintiff and the following ibarat E to F which speaks that the expenses of the registry, would be borne by the plaintiff, has not been proved. "C to D" 37X55=509 E to F 11. The case of the plaintiff on this issue is that portion C to D was written at the time of execution of agreement Ex. 1 and while the case of the defendant No. 1 is that it was subsequently added by the plaintiff and thus, by adding so, material alteration in the said agreement has been done by the plaintiff, which has affected the rights of the parties. 12. The learned lower court after discussing the evidence led by the parties has come to the conclusion that portion C to D was added later on by the plaintiff. In my opinion, whether it is added later on or not, it would not materially affect the case of the parties since in portion C to D only measurement of the plot has been mentioned. The said measurement has been taken from Ex. D-1, the original patta, which was issued by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1 for the said plot on 4.6.1964. What is material alteration? The said measurement has been taken from Ex. D-1, the original patta, which was issued by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1 for the said plot on 4.6.1964. What is material alteration? A material alteration is one which varies the rights, liabilities, or legal position of the parties ascertained by the deed in its original state or otherwise varies the legal effect of the instrument as originally expressed, or reduces to certainty some provision which was originally unascertained and as such void, or may otherwise prejudice the party bound by the deed as originally executed. 13. If such alteration varies the rights, liabilities etc., deed or instrument can be cancelled. In the present case putting of the measurement of the plot proposed to be sold in the agreement from the original patta does not at all affect the rights of the parties, therefore, such adding cannot be defined as material alteration. 14. Hence, the findings on issue No. 9 of the learned lower court are reversed and it is held that by adding portion C to D about the measurement, no case for material alternation is made out. Issue No. 2 15. Similarly, the issue No. 2 is in respect of ibarat E to F of the agreement Ex. 1. Since this portion E to F apparently appears to be added later on, therefore, it is held that such portion was not in Ex. 1 when it was drafted and moreover scribe of Ex. 1 has also not been produced by the plaintiff. In the absence of his statement, it cannot be said that portion E to F was in the original agreement. Therefore, it is held that this portion was added later on. Note:- It may be mentioned here that portions C to D and E to F in Ex. 1 whether written at the time of original agreement or later on would not affect the merit of the case as it will be apparent, when issue No. 5 would be decided. Issue No. 3 16. This issue was decided by the learned lower court as having no effect on the present controversy in the suit. 17. To appreciate it would be worthwhile to quote here condition Nos. (3) And (4) of original patta (Ex. D1) issue by the Municipality in favour of defendant No. 1 on 4.6.1964:- 18. Issue No. 3 16. This issue was decided by the learned lower court as having no effect on the present controversy in the suit. 17. To appreciate it would be worthwhile to quote here condition Nos. (3) And (4) of original patta (Ex. D1) issue by the Municipality in favour of defendant No. 1 on 4.6.1964:- 18. The relevant portion A to B of agreement Ex. 1 dated 2.4.1976 reads as under:- 19. The learned lower court has rightly observed that this portion is not in mandatory form it was agreed between the parties that if it was found necessary, the defendant No. 1 would do the needful otherwise not But from the letters which were written by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2, it appears the defendant No. 1 would obtain a clearance certificate before the execution of the registered sale deed. In this respect Ex. 2 is a letter dated 14.2. 1977 written by the plaintiff to defendant No. 2, where the plaintiff has inquired about the title and ownership of the plot in respect of agreement Ex. 1 from the Municipality- Ex. 5 was in this respect written by plaintiff to defendant No. 2 on 8.6.77. Ex. 7 is another letter written by plaintiff to defendant No. 2 on the same point and the same is dated 26.12.78, Ex. 9 is another letter dated 27.4.1976 written by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1, in which the plaintiff has clearly asked the defendant No. 1 first to obtain clearance certificate. Ex. 10 is another letter dated 1.5.76 written by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 asking for clearance certificate. 20. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is whether obtaining of such clearance certificate was necessary before passing over a clearance certificate was necessary before passing over a clear title to plaintiff or not.21. In Ex. D-1, which is a patta incorporated has been quoted above P.W. 1 (Plaintiff) has himself admitted in his cross-examination that after seeing Ex. D1 and condition Nos. (3) and (4), the Municipality, if finds the breach of condition Nos. (3) and (4), can cancel the plot or after taking charges as prescribed, regularise the plot. In Ex. D-1, which is a patta incorporated has been quoted above P.W. 1 (Plaintiff) has himself admitted in his cross-examination that after seeing Ex. D1 and condition Nos. (3) and (4), the Municipality, if finds the breach of condition Nos. (3) and (4), can cancel the plot or after taking charges as prescribed, regularise the plot. Similarly P.W. 6 Shankar Singh, who is Commissioner of the Municipality, has stated in his cross-examination that in case no construction is made on the plot within two years from the date of purchase, the Municipality can cancel the plot or regularise the plot after taking the charges as prescribed. 22. From the above statement, it appears that condition No. (4) of Ex. D-1 was not mandatory at all and it was wrong on the part of the plaintiff to insist defendant No. 1 to fulfil this condition first. The wordings of portion A to B of the agreement Ex. 1 also go to show that clearance certificate would be obtained only it found necessary. Nowhere it appears that it was necessary. Therefore, it cannot be said that it was incumbent on the part of the defendant No. 1 to get clearance certificate from the Municipality before the registration of the sale deed. 23. Hence, this Issue is decided accordingly and the learned lower court has also decided it in the same manner, but stating that it will have no effect to the controversy in the suit. Issue No. 4 issue 24. With the decision on issue No. 3, this issue is not required to be decided. Issue No. 5 Issue This is the main issue on which the case of the plaintiff hinges. The case of the plaintiff is that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract, while the case of the defendant No. 1 is otherwise. 26. The learned lower court has decided this issue against the plaintiff holding that he had never been ready and willing to perform his contract. 27. The legal aspect of the matter with respect to this issue is that in a suit for specific performance of contract, it is the duty of the plaintiff to aver and prove that he was ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract. 27. The legal aspect of the matter with respect to this issue is that in a suit for specific performance of contract, it is the duty of the plaintiff to aver and prove that he was ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract. Before granting the specific performance, the court has to see whether the plaintiff has complied with the conditions precedent laid down in Clause (c) of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1963' ), which is based on the maxim he who seeks equity must do equity.28. Section 16(c) of the Act of 1963 provides that specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person, who fails to aver and prove that he was or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract, which are to be performed by him other than terms, the performance of which has been prevented or waited by the defendant. Not only this, the plaintiff has to prove his continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of the contract till the date of hearing. Readiness and willingness have to be determined from the entirety of facts and circumstances relevant to the intention and conduct of the party concerned. The discretion to grant or decline the relief of specific performance is to be exercised not arbitrarily, but on sound judicial principles. The plaintiff's readiness and willingness must be in accordance with the leans and conditions of the contract. The plaintiff cannot add any additional terms for the performance of his part of the contract. If the real agreement is not what is alleged by the plaintiff and the readiness and willingness displayed was not in relation to the contract as interpreted by the Court, the plaintiff will not be entitled to any relief. 29 Looking to all best principles, the present case is now examined. 30. As already stated above, clearance certificate was not necessary, though the plaintiff was always pressing for that to defendant No. 1. It has also been stated above that portion A to B of agreement Ex. 1 was not mandatory and it was also not necessary that the defendant No. 1 was to secure first clearance certificate. 30. As already stated above, clearance certificate was not necessary, though the plaintiff was always pressing for that to defendant No. 1. It has also been stated above that portion A to B of agreement Ex. 1 was not mandatory and it was also not necessary that the defendant No. 1 was to secure first clearance certificate. The plaintiff in the present case has written many letters to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for getting the clearance certificate of title and these letters are Ex. 2, 5, 7, 9, 10 etc. These letters clearly go to show that the plaintiff was not al all ready and willing to get the agreement enforced, but he always put questions about the title. Ex. 17 is a telegram given by the defendant No. 1 to the counsel of plaintiff, where it has been clearly stated that he waited up to 5.00 P.M. on 3.5.1976 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Pali, but none appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. This clearly proves that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The fact though alleged by the plaintiff that he purchased the papers for registry and handed over to his counsel, cannot be accepted as such papers have not been produced in the Court. Against the attempt of the plaintiff defendant No. 1 through his counsel was always replying that he is ready and willing to do his job, but it was the plaintiff, who was putting hurdles in getting the sale deed registered. The learned lower court in para 12 of the judgment has clearly stated that at the time of execution of Ex. 1, the plaintiff had the knowledge of condition Nos. (3) and (4) of Ex. D-1, which he sometimes chose to refuse and at other times preferred to take and the learned lower court held that the plaintiff had the knowledge of these conditions, therefore, asking for clearance certificate is nothing, but excuses on the part of the plaintiff. 21. Not only this, it cannot be said that the defendant No. 1 has suppressed either Ex. D-1 or any defective title on his part. 32. 21. Not only this, it cannot be said that the defendant No. 1 has suppressed either Ex. D-1 or any defective title on his part. 32. From the evidence available on record and the facts and circumstances of the case., it can be easily held that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contact till date of the suit and was, therefore, not entitled to decree for specific performance of agreement Ex. 1. Thus the findings of the learned lower court on this issue No. 5 are affirmed. Issue Nos. 6 and 7 33. So far as the issue Nos. 6 and 7 are concerned, since the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree for the specific performance of agreement Ex. 1, he is also not entitled for other reliefs and the suit was rightly dismissed by the learned lower court. 34. Hence, this appeal of the appellant-plaintiff is dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 26.10.1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi are affirmed. No order as to cost. Appeal dismissed. *******