JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. This second appeal has arisen from the judgment dated 20.5.97 of the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No. 25 of 1996 dismissing the appeal and affirming the decree for specific performance by the Subordinate Judge, West Tripura, Agartala by judgment dated 11.6.80 in Title Suit No. 17 of 71. 2. The original Respondent herein was Sri Amulya Ranjan Das. After his death during pendency of this second appeal, his wife, son and daughter have been impleaded as the Respondents. The Appellant herein Smt. Putul Rani Goswami is one of the two daughters of Satish Chandra Bhattacharjee. Amulya Ranan Das filed Title Suit No. 17 of 71 in the court of Subordinate Judge, Agartala, West Tripura for a decree against Satish Chandra directing him to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the land measuring 18 gandas 2 karas appertaining to jote No. 179 of Krishnanagar, town sheet No. 7 owned by Satish Chandra. A deed of agreement commonly known as 'baynapatra' was executed by Satish Chandra on 28.7.68 after receiving Rs. 10,000/- in advance out of the total price of Rs. 12,000/-. In terms of the agreement, the Plaintiff was to pay the balance amount within six months. On 2.1.69, well within time, Anr. sum of Rs. 1000/- was paid after Satish Chandra was insisting for the money. A receipt was executed by Satish Chandra for Rs. 1,000/- on 2.1.69 whereby the time was extended for remaining of Rs. 1,000/- by six months more. The Plaintiff thereafter approached Satish Chandra for execution of the sale deed on receiving the balance amount. But Satish Chandra was lukewarm in his response avoiding execution of the sale deed. 3. There was Anr. development which complicated the issue. Satish Chandra lost his wife in 1950. He was left with two minor daughters aged 5 and 2 at the time of his wife's death. Smt. Putul Rani Goswami, the Appellant herein is the elder daughter and Smt. Mukul Rani Bhattacharjee, the second Respondent, is the younger one. 3. There was Anr. development which complicated the issue. Satish Chandra lost his wife in 1950. He was left with two minor daughters aged 5 and 2 at the time of his wife's death. Smt. Putul Rani Goswami, the Appellant herein is the elder daughter and Smt. Mukul Rani Bhattacharjee, the second Respondent, is the younger one. The two daughters, after they had grown major and got married, locked in a battle against their father claiming that the entire land measuring 1 kani 7 ganda 1 kara 1 kranta 16 dhur of the said jote No. 179 was transferred to them by a gift deed executed by Satish Chandra on 29.7.68. It would be seen that according to them, the gift deed was executed by their father one day after he had executed the deed of agreement in favour of the Plaintiff for sale of 18 ganda 2 karas of the said jote. Before the Sub-Registrar, Satish Chandra denied execution of the gift deed and when registration was refused, the daughters preferred a registration appeal under Section73 of the Indian Registration Act. During pendency of the said appeal, Satish Chandra instituted Title Suit No. 85 of 69 for declaring the gift deed as forged. Eventually following the compromise between the father and the daughters, the registration appeal was closed and the gift deed was not registered. 4. Though Satish Chandra initially was reluctant to execute the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff Amulya Ranjan Das in the face of his on going tussle against his daughters, finally he agreed to execute and register the sale deed and in terms of the agreement the Plaintiff presented himself in the office of the Sub Registrar on 27.7.71 waiting for Satish Chandra who, however, did not turn up. This gave rise to the cause of action for filing the suit for specific performance. It has been contended by the Plaintiff that the agreement for sale was executed by Satish Chandra in presence of his two daughters and, therefore, their claim of a gift deed executed by their father in respect of the same land on the following day is absurd and just a ploy of defeat the original claim of the Plaintiff. It has been contended by the Plaintiff that the agreement for sale was executed by Satish Chandra in presence of his two daughters and, therefore, their claim of a gift deed executed by their father in respect of the same land on the following day is absurd and just a ploy of defeat the original claim of the Plaintiff. However, Satish Chandra in his written statement presented on 28.8.72 admitted that he had executed an agreement to sell 18 gandas 2 karas of land to the Plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/- out of which he received Rs. 10,000/- on 28.7.68 when the agreement was executed and Rs. 1,000/- on 2.1.69. His contention is that his daughters forged a gift deed and claimed his entire property of Jote No. 179 most illegally which had drawn him to an internecine tussle preventing him from executing and registering a sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff. His final contention is that he had no objection to execute and register the sale deed on receipt of the remaining amount of Rs. 1,000/-. But, then, much later, he filed a second written statement on 10.1.79 after a period of more than 6 years, giving a complete somersault from what he had stated in his earlier written statement. However, during pendency of the suit Satish Chandra died on 12.1.74 survived by his two daughters only who came to be impleaded as Defendants in the said suit. 5. The suit was decreed with a direction to the two daughters to execute and register a sale deed after receiving Rs. 1,000/- from the Plaintiff within a period of 15 days from the date of deposit of the said amount failing which the Plaintiff would be entitled to get the sale deed executed in his favour by the court itself. The elder daughter Smt. Putul Rani Goswami remained aggrieved and preferred the Title Appeal No. 25 of 1996 while the other daughter backed out. The appeal was, however, dismissed with affirmation of the decree of the trial court. Putul Rani refused to relent and by means of this second appeal has put under challenge the concurrent findings of the courts below. 6. The appeal was, however, dismissed with affirmation of the decree of the trial court. Putul Rani refused to relent and by means of this second appeal has put under challenge the concurrent findings of the courts below. 6. This Court while admitting this second appeal on 28.10.98 formulated following substantial questions of law: (i) "Whether the averments in para-2 of the plaint as originally filed by the Plaintiff in the suit were sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; (ii) Whether the subsequent pleadings under Order VIII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure could have been taken into consideration by the court although the original plaint was amended under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (iii) Whether the original contract for sale dated 28.7.68 (Ext. 1) was extinguished or only altered by the subsequent document dated 2.1.69 (Ext. 2) and as to whether the Plaintiff was entitled to specific enforcement of the original contract dated 28.7.68 after the second document dated 2.1.69. 7. I have heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. D. R. Chowdhury, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 8. While adverting to the substantial questions of law, it is to be borne-in-mind that in the first written statement the original Defendant Satish Chandra admitted the claim of the Plaintiff and expressed his willingness to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff for the land measuring 18 gandas and 2 karas of Jote No. 179. But after a long period of more than six years he presented the second written statement reversing his earlier stand and so this change of position calls for closer examination in the backdrop of the complex factual matrix. The deed of gift which became the main plank for putting up a hostile claim by the two daughters was declared void in Anr. proceeding (T.S. No. 59 of 77) by Sadar Munsiff, Agartala instituted by one Adesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee and Ors.. The judgment of this Court in S.A. No. 23 of 83 affirmed the decree in the said suit which was, however, reversed by the first appellate court. It would appear therefrom that after the death of his wife Satish Chandra brought up his two daughters who got married at their own will without his consent. The judgment of this Court in S.A. No. 23 of 83 affirmed the decree in the said suit which was, however, reversed by the first appellate court. It would appear therefrom that after the death of his wife Satish Chandra brought up his two daughters who got married at their own will without his consent. Satish Chandra married again and intended to dispose of his properties of Jote No. 179 with a view to settle elsewhere. But the daughters and their husbands were determined to block the plan and in order to grab the lands filed lunacy case No. 2 of 1964 in the court of District Judge for a declaration that their father was a lunatic. That case became a dampsquip. In 1968, Satish Chandra filed a criminal case against his daughters. As a counter, the elder daughter also filed a criminal case against her father. It was alleged that on 29.7.68 the two daughters forged a deed of gift showing the same executed by their father on 9.10.68. The gift deed was presented for registration and on 27.11.68 Satish Chandra by a written statement denied the execution. When registration was refused by the Deputy Registrar, the daughters filed an appeal before the District Registrar where following a compromise petition, the appeal was closed refusing to register the gift deed. Thereafter on 10.12.73, Adesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee purchased certain land from the said jote land of Satish Chandra and constructed residential hut thereon. But thereafter, the second daughter of Satish Chandra filed a petition before the District Registrar stating that she was not the party to the compromise petition and claimed that the gift deed to the extent of her share should be registered. This was done after the demise of Satish Chandra on 12.1.74. Most illegally the District Registrar by order dated 10.2.76 ordered for registration of the gift deed partially and accordingly, the same was registered on 16.2.76. The said registered gift deed having contained the lands already purchased by Adesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee and Ors. in 1973 their title to the same came to be clouded and, therefore, they filed the said suit for declaration that the deed of gift was void. The suit was decreed declaring the gift deed void which finally came to be affirmed by this Court in S.A. No. 23 of 83 as already noticed. 9. in 1973 their title to the same came to be clouded and, therefore, they filed the said suit for declaration that the deed of gift was void. The suit was decreed declaring the gift deed void which finally came to be affirmed by this Court in S.A. No. 23 of 83 as already noticed. 9. The above factual position has been noted here only to show the canvas of the present proceeding which is soiled by greed and acrimony that spoiled the relation between the father and the daughters. The two daughters also had fallen apart later when the elder one instituted a proceeding herself for declaration of the gift deed void. After they became legal heirs following the death of their father, the challenge to the claim of the original Respondent herein stood reduced to the technicality only in view of the unequivocal admission by their father in the first written statement that he had executed an agreement to sell 18 gandas and 2 karas of land in favour of the original Respondent on receiving Rs. 1,000/- out of Rs. 12,000/- being the consideration money and that he was willing to execute a registered sale deed. 10. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the Appellant would argue that what has been pleaded in para 2 of the plaint does not amount to sufficient compliance of the provision contained in Section16(c) of the Specific Relief Act which is the first substantial question of law formulated in this second appeal. Section 16(c) of that Act provides: 16. Personal bars to relief.- Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person: (c) who fails to aver and prove that he has performed 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 waived by the Defendant. Explanation. - For the purposes of Clause (c),- (i) where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the Plaintiff to actually tender to the Defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court; (ii) the Plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction. Para 2 of the plaint reads: That the Plaintiff was ready with the balance consideration of Rs. 1,000/- for the kabala within the next six months from 2.1.69. Plaintiff made repeated demand to the Defendant No. 1 for execution and registration of the kabala for the said lands after receipt of balance consideration money but the Defendant No. 1 did not execute and register the kabala amicably after receipt of the balance consideration of the kabala on repeated demands within six months of 2.1.69 as agreed upon. That the Plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform the contract accepting to the terms of the contract but the Defendant No. 1 deferred the matter without any reasonable cause. 11. It is quite evident that the Plaintiff averred his readiness and willingness to pay Rs. 1,000/- being the balance of Rs. 12,000/ -. There is no dispute that he had already paid Rs. 11,000/- to the original Respondent. Without further detention on the issue, it may be convincingly held that the requirement of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act was fully complied with. 12. Upon decision that in the original plaint the Plaintiff had averred his readiness and willingness to pay the balance amount, it is not necessary to dwell with the subsequent pleading under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) regarding compliance with the said provision of Section16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. 13. The third and final substantial question of law is whether the contract dated 28.7.68 whereby six months time was granted for payment of the balance amount of Rs. 2,000/- stood extinguished when on 2.1.69 (Ext. 2) before expiry of six months, the Plaintiff paid Rs. 1,000/- to the original Defendant on his request and by executing Anr. document the period of payment of the remaining Rs. 1,000/- was extended. A perusal of the document dated 2.1:69 read with the original contract dated 28.7.68 (Ext. 1) does not offer any reasonable construction that by mere extending time the original contract stood abrogated as such construction would lead to absurdity. No such plea regarding abrogation of the original contract was ever raised by the original Defendant and in that view of the matter the opposition by the elder daughter to the decree on this technical ground is not sustainable in law. No such plea regarding abrogation of the original contract was ever raised by the original Defendant and in that view of the matter the opposition by the elder daughter to the decree on this technical ground is not sustainable in law. It may be noted here that the original Defendant could not examine himself to explain the change of his stand in the second written statement though such shift in the stand cannot be taken at face value when the pleaded facts and other circumstances from Anr. proceeding instituted by Adesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee and Ors. bring into focus an extremely strained relation between the father an the two daughters and presumably the old father was under tremendous pressure from his greedy daughters to change his stand with a view to frustrate the original claim of the Plaintiff-Respondent herein. 14. Mr. D. R. Chowdhury, learned Counsel for the Respondents would place an argument which only strengthen the view already taken above that Section 16(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act cannot be construed to mean that the Respondent should have been ready with cash with him. The very fact that out of Rs. 12,000/-, Rs. 11,000/- was paid by the Respondent and after much persuasion Satish Chandra agreed to execute and register the sale deed and as agreed upon the Plaintiff was present in the office of the Sub Registrar on 27.7.71 waiting for Satish Chandra to execute and register the sale deed would eloquently so readiness and willingness on the part of the Plaintiff-Respondent to perform his part of the contract entitling thereby a decree for specific performance. In support of his contention regarding the true spirit of readiness and -willingness Mr. Chowdhury has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sukhbir Singh v. Brij Pal Singh reported in (1997) 2 SCC 200. In para 4 of this judgment, the Apex Court has observed thus: What requires to be considered is whether the essential facts constituting the ingredients in Section 16(1)(c) of the Act were pleaded and that found mentioned in the said forms do in substance point to those facts. The procedure is the hand maid to the substantive rights of the parties. It would, therefore, be clear from a perusal of the pleadings and the forms that the averments are consistent with the forms. The procedure is the hand maid to the substantive rights of the parties. It would, therefore, be clear from a perusal of the pleadings and the forms that the averments are consistent with the forms. When the Respondents had pleaded and proved by the Sub-Registrar's endorsement as per paper No. 41/C that the Respondents were present in the office of the Sub-Registrar for having the sale deed executed and registered by the Petitioners, it would be explicit that the Respondents were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. The facts that the Petitioners did not attend the office would prove positively that the Petitioners had avoided execution of the sale deed. 15. The facts in hand are almost pari materia with the facts in the above noted case as in this case also, Plaintiff-Respondent was present in Sub-Registrar's office on 27.7.71 waiting for the original vendor to come, execute and register the sale deed which fact alone would show readiness and willingness on the part of the Plaintiff Respondent to perform his part of the agreement. 16. The substantial questions having answered above, this second appeal for the reasons and discussions aforementioned has no merit and consequently, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost. Appeal dismissed