Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named appellant who was defendant in the original suit being Title Suit No. 141/1991 and he was respondent in Title Appeal No. 15/1998. The suit of the plaintiffs respondents was dismissed in the trial Court but the said dismissal has been reversed by the Appellate Court and the suit has been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. 2. The original suit was filed by Jhakia Devi the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents. The suit was filed on the basis of an agreement for Specific Performance. Usual prayers were made in the suit filed under the provisions of Specific Relief Act for directing the defendant to execute the sale-deed on the basis of the agreement for sale after taking the consideration amount from the plaintiff and if the defendant does not execute the sale-deed within a specified time the same should be done by the Court. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property measuring fifteen and half decimals of land under Khata No. 443, Khasra No. 423 of Mouza Sajour, P.S. Sahkund, District. Bhagalpur, had been acquired by the plaintiffs on the basis of registered sale-deed dated 4-8-1971 execute by Sri Ishwar Chunihara and others and also from Chichia Harijan by sale-deed dated 19-11-1989 and 23-11-1989. After purchase the plaintiffs were in full cultivating possession of the suit land. A great necessity of money crept up as a result of which the plaintiff Jhakia Devi approached the defendant-appellant to sell out the land with a condition of repurchase. It was agreed upon that the plaintiffs would execute the sale-deed in favour of the defendant and if the amount of consideration is being repaid within three years time by the plaintiff to the defendant then the defendant would execute a return sale-deed to favour of the plaintiff. As per that agreement the plaintiff executed a sale-deed on 26-5-1986 in favour of the defendant on receipt of a consideration amount of Rs. 5,500.00 and on the same date i.e. on 26-5-1986 as the contract earlier the defendant executed a registered agreement in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that he would execute a sale-deed on receiving of Rs. 5,500.00 from the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff within three years time. 5,500.00 and on the same date i.e. on 26-5-1986 as the contract earlier the defendant executed a registered agreement in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that he would execute a sale-deed on receiving of Rs. 5,500.00 from the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff within three years time. Within that three years time the plaintiff was not in a position to get re-conveyance of the deed and, as such, on her request another agreement was executed in favour of the plaintiff and the date of re-conveyance had been extended upto 30-4-1991. It is the case of the plaintiff that the requested the defendant to execute the registered sale-deed, but the defendant was delaying the matter on this pretext or the other. Thereafter, within the period the plaintiff sent a pleaders notice on 10-4-1991 under Certificate of Posting requesting the defendant to execute the necessary sale-deed by 30-4-1991 on receipt of an amount of Rs. 5,500.00 but then the defendant did not execute. Then the plaintiffs issued a Registered notice with acknowledgment on 20-7-1991 requesting the defendant to execute the sale-deed. It was further stated by the plaintiff that at all material time the plaintiff was ready to give the amount of Rs. 5,500.00 to the defendant but the defendant did not perform his part of contract. Hence, the suit was filed. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement. The title of the plaintiff over the suit property and then its sale to the defendant and execution of two agreements successively are all admitted but the defendants case is that the plaintiff was having bereft of money at any point of time and she did never make any request to the defendant within the specified time to execute the sale-deed. Only after the expiry of the period the plaintiff with ulterior motive gave notice and then filed the present suit. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties several issues were framed including regarding to the legality and validity of the agreement dated 26-5-1986 and the subsequent agreement thereof and whether there was any readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff regarding execution of the sale-deed on payment of the consideration amount as the time was the essence of the contract. Both the parties adduced evidence. Both the parties adduced evidence. Plaintiffs side examined seven witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Manik Chandra Sinha, P.W. 2 Jawahar Jha, P.W. 3 Upendra Das, P.W. 4 Krishna Kumar Ghosh, P.W. 5 Bindeshwari Singh, P.W. 6 Jhakia Devi and P.W. 7 Indra Harijan. On behalf of then plaintiff the copy of the notices sent under Certificate of Posting and then by Registered Post were also exhibited with the agreement executed on 20-5-1986 and the renewed agreement Ext. 4 dated 17-6-1989. Defendants have also adduced evidence of three witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Mostt. Sabri, D.W. 2 Dinesh Chowdhary and D.W. 3 Girija Pati Prasad. 5. The trial Court held that as the suit is for deed of re-conveyance then the time is the essence of the contract and if payment has not been tendered within the time frame then the plaintiff is not entitled to get re-conveyance. It was held that the notices sent within the time frame as alleged from the side of the plaintiff could not be proved and the notice under Certificate Posting being a weak type of evidence, no reliance can be put on it, Moreover so, when there is no mention of this notice in the Registered notice sent after the expiry of the period. The oral evidence adduced have also been held to be inconsistent inasmuch as the plaintiff could not say specifically as to the date etc. of sending of two notices. Regarding the capability of the plaintiff regarding payment of consideration amount it was held that there is inconsistent evidence to the effect that the plaintiff said she had collected the amount of selling wheat grains while another witness said that she had collected the amount by doing labour work etc. and, as such, held that, although, there is averment to the effect as contained in sec. 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act regarding readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs regarding part performance of the contract, the same could not be proved beyond doubt as there is inconsistent evidence regarding giving notice and also regarding capability of acquiring consideration amount by the plaintiff. 6. 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act regarding readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs regarding part performance of the contract, the same could not be proved beyond doubt as there is inconsistent evidence regarding giving notice and also regarding capability of acquiring consideration amount by the plaintiff. 6. On appeal being preferred by the plaintiffs-respondents the Appellate Court held that from the over-all circumstances it could be found that the plaintiff had given notice to the defendant calling upon to execute the deed and regarding acquisition of amount cannot be construed to be dis-believable as because the person concerned to whom the what grains had been sold had not been disclosed by the plaintiff. The Appellate Court by referring to Apex Court decision and the decisions of this Court and various other Judgments of other Courts held that the plaintiff had proved that within the time frame she had made her demand and that she was ready to execute her part of performance and hence the suit has been decreed. 7. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties vide Order dated 3-1-2003 the appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law: (i) Whether the judgment of the Appellate Court is vitiated due to non-consideration of the oral evidence on the issue of readiness and willingness when the trial Court had rejected such oral evidence stating the same to be inconsistent.? 8. The factual aspects are almost admitted in the case. Admittedly, it is a case of re-conveyance. On the very date of execution of the sale-deed, the deed of agreement was executed for re-conveyance with three years time. But then again when the plaintiff could express her inability to collect the amount then at her request a further agreement was made extending the period upto 30-4-1991. Then, it is the case of the plaintiff that within that extended period the could collect the amount by selling wheat grains and then only she approached the appellant alongwith her husband and children requesting the appellant to execute the sale-deed but the appellant was deferring with this plea or that plea. Then she sent notice within the period under Certificate of Posting and after the expiry of the period a registered notice was sent to the defendant. Defendants side only contested the portion of readiness and willingness. 9. Then she sent notice within the period under Certificate of Posting and after the expiry of the period a registered notice was sent to the defendant. Defendants side only contested the portion of readiness and willingness. 9. It has already been held by the different High Courts as also by the Apex Court that readiness and willingness to perform part of the contract have got distinction, Willingness might be there but such willingness without the readiness would not make the plaintiff to get the deed executed through Court. In the present case willingness is there from the very beginning. Registered agreement was made regarding re-conveyance and then as she could not have the money within the period but willingness still subsisted. Then the second agreement was made extending the time till 30-4-1991. So, willingness has been proved from the circumstances of the case. In this respect a decision has been referred to as reported in 1996 (4) S.C.C., 526. The Specific Relief Act only wants an averment to be made u/s. 16(c) of the Act regarding readiness and willingness. That is there in the plaint itself and eagerness of the plaintiff could be found from the evidence also. In the reported judgment of the Apex Court as mentioned above, the facts of that case show neither readiness nor willingness but that is not the case in the present one. Similarly, the Division Bench judgment of this Court as reported in 1996 (2) PLJR, 732, has also got no application in this case wherein the plaintiff failed to tender the balance amount. In that case practically there was dispute regarding the deed itself whether being guided u/s. 55 read with sec. 58(c) of T. P. Act or not. In the case of reconveyance time is definitely the essence of the contract as per the Contract Act and if no tendering is there within the time frame, the plaintiff fails to get re-conveyance. Here, the evidence is there that she had sent the notice under Certificate of Posting and then she approached the appellant alongwith her husband and children tendering the amount. Regarding her readiness not only this much was prima-facie but also by selling wheat grains she could collect the amount. Source is not required to be revealed but that his also been revealed in the present case. Regarding her readiness not only this much was prima-facie but also by selling wheat grains she could collect the amount. Source is not required to be revealed but that his also been revealed in the present case. It is true as has been held by the Apex Court in to Judgments that notice sent under Certificate of Posting is a weak evidence as certificate could be procured at any time. Regarding sending of the notice under Certificate of Posting except of denial none has been brought from the Post Office to say that the certificate Was false and fabricated. It is true that because of its nature the notice sent under Certificate of Posting is weak type of evidence., but it cannot be held to be no evidence. If such weak type of evidence is supported by further evidence then it definitely can be relied on. Regarding the dis- believing the Certificate of Posting when mentioning is not there in the registered post notice which was sent after the period was over may not be of much importance as that registered notice has got no relevance as the notice was sent after its period was over. But then the readiness could be shown by adducing evidence when the lady had approached personally to the appellant which could not be falsified by any negative evidenced. Such evidence supports the case of the plaintiff and can be reinforced by the notice under Certificate of Posting. 10. The learned trial Court held that the evidence regarding the readiness is inconsistent as because notice under Certificate of Posting is a weak type of evidence and that the plaintiff could not disclose the name of person to whom she had sold the wheat grains to collect the amount and that another witness said that she collected the amount by labour work. It has rightly been held by the Appellate Court that such inconsistency as has been made may got be of vital importance which could be apparent in the light that the Plaintiff is an uneducated, rustic village woman. The property of the plaintiff should not be allowed to be grabbed on hyper-technicality. It has rightly been held by the Appellate Court that such inconsistency as has been made may got be of vital importance which could be apparent in the light that the Plaintiff is an uneducated, rustic village woman. The property of the plaintiff should not be allowed to be grabbed on hyper-technicality. The situation should be adjudged by considering the overall evidence adduced and in my opinion, the inconsistency of the evidence on which the plaintiffs suit has been dismissed by the learned trial Court has rightly been rejected by the Appellate Court by considering the overall evidence referring to the Judgments of the various Courts including the Apex Court as mentioned in the Judgments Itself. 11. If the notice under Certificate of Posting would have been the sole evidence then, perhaps, on the ground of weak evidence the plaintiffs case might have been rejected. But when such weak evidence has been reinforced by other oral evidence, the Appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal and granted decree in favour of the respondent. 12. In the circumstances, the substantial question of law as framed is answered accordingly and the Second Appeal is dismissed upholding the Appellate Courts Judgment and decree.