K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant is the plaintiff filed the suit initially for a direction against the defendant to execute the sale deed by receiving a sum of Rs. 22,000/- on the ground of right of preemption. Later on, the plaintiff amended the plaint set up the agreement for sale dated 7-9-1984 and sought relief of specific performance. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that himself and his brother one beerappa got divided under Ex. P. 5 dated 8-2-1984. The suit property which is allotted to the brother of the plaintiff is sold to defendant under ex. D. 3 dated 5-9-1984 for a sum of Rs. 32,000/ -. The plaintiif entered into an agreement for purchase of the same under Ex. P. 1 dated 7-9-1984. The plaintiff has no knowledge that the consideration under ex. D. 3 is Rs. 32,000/ -. Under Ex. P. 1 the total sale consideration agreed is Rs. 95,000/-, an advance of Rs. 10,000/- was paid at the time of ex. P. 1. The sale is to he completed within 40 days from the date of Ex. P. 1 by paying the balance of consideration. The plaintiff issued notice as per Ex. P. 2 to the defendant to receive a balance of consideration and to execute the sale deed. The defendant replied as per Ex. P. 3 dated 15-10-1984 that advance paid was only Rs. 1,000/- and not Rs. 10,000/ -. Therefore insisted on payment of balance of Rs. 94,000/- for executing the sale deed. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed a suit initially not on the basis of Ex. P. 1 but invoked the right of preemption. It is the contention that the brother of the plaintiff who was vendor of the defendant was not entitled to sell the suit property to the defendant without providing option to the plaintiff. Therefore, contends that the sale in favour of the defendant is in breach of the right of preemption of the plaintiff. Accordingly', sought a relief of direction to the defendant to convey the property to the plaintiff at,the value stated in Ex. D. 3. It is further said that advance of Rs. 10,000/- paid is to be deducted from the sale value of Ex. D. 3, the balance of Rs. 22,000/- is offered to the defendant for executing the sale deed. Accordingly', sought a relief of direction to the defendant to convey the property to the plaintiff at,the value stated in Ex. D. 3. It is further said that advance of Rs. 10,000/- paid is to be deducted from the sale value of Ex. D. 3, the balance of Rs. 22,000/- is offered to the defendant for executing the sale deed. The plaintiff later on amended the plaint to seek relief of specific performance on the basis of the agreement for sale at Ex. P. 1. The plaintiff also contends that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract throughout. The plaintiff has also deposited the balance of consideration. ( 4 ) THE Trial Court has found that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract throughout and dismissed the suit. The relevant observations of the trial Court in its findings on Issue No. 3 at para 18 is extracted hereunder for convenient reference:"on going through the agreement Ex. P. 1, it can be seen that the agreed amount of consideration was Rs. 95,000/ -. The plaintiff had also agreed to pay the expenses of registration incurred by the defendant for getting the sale deed in her name from her vendor, apart from the aforesaid consideration amount. The plaintiff has contended that he was ready to pay the balance amount of consideration. On going through the plaint it can bee seen that the plaintiff had initially filed this suit on the basis of pre-emption, claiming that the suit property should be sold to him for a sum of rs. 32,000/- only. The plaintiff had offered to pay the balance amount of Rs. 22,000/- though as per the suit agreement, the balance amount is Rs. 85,000/ -. The plaintiff had subsequently amended the plaint and he had sought for an alternative relief of specific performance and he had agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 85,000/ -. The suit was filed on 19-7-1985 and the aforesaid amendment was done on 2-7-1991. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the amendment of the plaint will relate back to the date of the institution of the suit, he has relied on a decision reported in M. L. Shankaranarayana Rao v corporation of the City of Bangalore, 1973 (2) Mys. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the amendment of the plaint will relate back to the date of the institution of the suit, he has relied on a decision reported in M. L. Shankaranarayana Rao v corporation of the City of Bangalore, 1973 (2) Mys. L. J. 486, in support of his argument. It is no doubt that after amendment of the plaint, the amendment will relate back to the date of the suit for the purpose of limitation. But if we try to find out the intention of the party, it can be seen that the plaintiff was not intending to pay the balance amount of consideration of Rs. 85,000/- as on the date of the suit and he was intending to pay only a sum of Rs. 22,000/-, which as per him, was the balance amount. This goes to show that irrespective of whether the plaintiff was in possession of a sum of Rs. 85,000/- or not, the plaintiff was not willing to pay the balance amount of Rs. 85,000/- when the suit was instituted. It was only in 1991, that the plaintiff got amended the plaint and contended that he is ready to pay the balance amount of Rs. 85,000/ -. If we consider this aspect, it clearly goes to show that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to pay the balance amount of rs. 85,000/- as on the date of the filing of the suit, hence, I conclude that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement by paying the balance amount of consideration as on the date of the suit, hence, I answer issue No 3 in negative". ( 5 ) SRI L. S. Varadaraj lyengar relied on the ruling of the Allahabad high Court in Brij Kishore v Smt. Mushtari Khatoon, at para 6 the following observations are made:". . . . . . . THE pleadings in Suit Nos. 417 and 418 of 1968 were subsequently amended and the present plaintiff was unequivocally admitted to be owner of the premises. In Prabhu narain Singh v Jitendra Mohan Singh, AIR 1948 Oudh 307, it was held that the Court must take the pleadings as they stand after amendment and leave out of consideration the unamended ones. 417 and 418 of 1968 were subsequently amended and the present plaintiff was unequivocally admitted to be owner of the premises. In Prabhu narain Singh v Jitendra Mohan Singh, AIR 1948 Oudh 307, it was held that the Court must take the pleadings as they stand after amendment and leave out of consideration the unamended ones. In Warner v Sampson, (1959)1 All ER 120 : (1959)2 WLR 109, it was laid down that a writ as amended becomes for that purpose the original commencement of that action. It was observed that once pleadings are amended that which stood before amendment was no longer material. Ejectment on the ground of disclaimer was accordingly refused in that case". ( 6 ) THE facts disclose that the tenant initially denied the legal relationship of landlady and tenant. Later on by amdndment of the written statement admitted that plaintiff is the landlady. The defendant again tried to retract from the admission made in the amended written statement. In that context, it is held that the defendant is not entitled to retract and is bound by the amended pleadings and not by the deleted pleadings. The said ratio has no application to the facts. The ratio laid down in the decision of this Court in M. L. Shankaranarayan Rao's case, holding that the amended pleadings relate back to the date of suit and not the date of amendment also has no application to the facts on hand. ( 7 ) IN a suit for specific performance suit, it is necessary that the plaintiff should establish that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract throughout. No doubt, plaintiff issued notice under Ex. P. 2 intimating his willingness to pay his balance and to obtain the registered sale deed as per Ex. P. 1. The plaintiff initially filed the suit not on the basis of Ex. P. 1 but invoked the right of pre-emption; offered for less consideration than what is agreed under Ex. P. 1. The plaintiff, although amended the pleading to seek the relief of specific performance on the basis of Ex. P. 1. But, the mental attitude and conduct of the plaintiff, demonstrated in the initial pleadingts belies the claim of readiness and willingness to perform the terms of the contract throughout as per the terms stated in Ex. P. 1. P. 1. The plaintiff, although amended the pleading to seek the relief of specific performance on the basis of Ex. P. 1. But, the mental attitude and conduct of the plaintiff, demonstrated in the initial pleadingts belies the claim of readiness and willingness to perform the terms of the contract throughout as per the terms stated in Ex. P. 1. The contention that the previous deleted pleadings need not be looked into under all circumstances is untenable. In a case of misstatement of fact if the pleadings are amended, the amended version is to be taken into consideration and not the deleted version. In the present case, the said principle has no application. The plaintiff has to plead and prove readiness and willingness throughout, which means even on the date of the suit. The suit initially was not based on Ex. P. 1 but on the right of presumption, which belies the contention of readiness and willingness as on the date of the suit. In that view, the finding of the Trial Court on issue No. 3 is sound and proper. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with costs. --- *** --- .