JUDGMENT : This appeal at the instance of original plaintiff, is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.10.1996 passed by learned District Judge, Bhandara in Regular Civil Appeal No.108/1994 whereby the learned District Judge set aside the decree passed by the trial Court and ordered dismissal of Special Civil Suit No. 27/1993. 2. Facts briefly mentioned are : The plaintiff had filed Special Civil Suit No. 27/1993 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Dn. Bhandara for declaration that sale deed dated 23.11.1992 between defendant no.1 and 2 be declared null and void and cancelled; and for direction against the defendant no.1 to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as per terms of agreement to sell dated 16.10.1992 by accepting balance amount. First defendant owned agricultural land Gut No. 196 H O = 98R at village Pardi. On 16.10.1992, the plaintiff had entered into an agreement whereby the first defendant had agreed to sell the suit land at the rate of Rs. 12500/ per acre, having accepted earnest money of Rs. 4,000/. The sale deed was to be executed between 21.3.1993 and 30.3.1993 and in case it is not so possible by 15.4.1993; the amount of earnest money would not be refunded. Accordingly, the plaintiff had made arrangement to purchase the land but in the meantime first defendant executed sale deed in favour of second defendant for Rs. 33,000/ on 23.11.1992 without cancellation of agreement to sell. The plaintiff by notice dated 30.11.1992 called upon the first defendant and second defendant to cancel the sale deed and execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants did not comply and hence suit was instituted. 3. First defendant admitted agreement to sell suit land and the transaction with second defendant. According to first defendant, the plaintiff has expressed that he may refund the earnest amount after receiving consideration of Rs. 33,000/ from second defendant. 4. Second defendant claimed she is a bona fide transferee for value without notice of earlier transaction i.e. agreement to sell between plaintiff and first defendant. 5. The trial Court decreed the suit for declaration and specific performance in favour of the plaintiff. 6. The lower Appellate Court examined evidence and trial Court's judgment and order was found rather indefensible, unsustainable as legal and proper. 7. 5. The trial Court decreed the suit for declaration and specific performance in favour of the plaintiff. 6. The lower Appellate Court examined evidence and trial Court's judgment and order was found rather indefensible, unsustainable as legal and proper. 7. The Second Appeal is admitted on 28.7.1998 on following substantial question of law : "Whether once the trial Court having exercised the discretion in favour of the plaintiff and granted specific performance of the sale, the appellate Court was justified in upsetting the exercise of discretion of the trial Court by giving cogent reasons for doing so." 8. The lower Appellate Court examined the document (Exh.40) written on stamp paper of denomination of Rs. 10/ purchased of course allegedly on 16.10.1992; but not in the name of plaintiff Ramdas but in the name of Shrawan Bajiraoji Mohatare, Pardi, who appeared to have put his signature on the top of the stamp paper. The plaintiff did not explain as to why he was required to use a stamp paper bought by Shrawan Bajirao Mohature, Pardi. The plaintiff was also unable to establish that second defendant Yamunabai had previous knowledge about the agreement to sell. The plaintiff admitted in the course of his crossexamination that he was silently standing outside the office of the SubRegistrar till the work of the execution and registration of the sale deed was complete and then he entered in the office of the SubRegistrar. The lower Appellate Court disbelieved the application (Exh.32) which the plaintiff stated to have tendered in the SubRegistrar's Office. It did not borne any endorsement from the office of the SubRegistrar. Thus, the plaintiff could not impute or attribute knowledge of the agreement to sell to the purchaser Yamunabai prior to execution of the sale deed on 23.11.1992. Thus, it was found that plea of Yamunabai that she is bona fide purchaser for value without notice of earlier transaction was not damaged. It was also noticed by the lower Appellate Court that pleading that the plaintiff was and is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract was absent in the plaint and there was no whisper whatsoever about it in evidence. It was also noticed by the lower Appellate Court that pleading that the plaintiff was and is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract was absent in the plaint and there was no whisper whatsoever about it in evidence. In the case of His Holiness Acharya Swami Ganesh Dasji vs. Shri Sitaram Thapar : AIR 1996 SC 2095 the Apex Court observed that the plaintiff must aver that he was and is ready and willing to perform part of his contract in view of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. It is thus stated: "There is distinction between readiness to perform the contract and willingness to perform the contract. By readiness may be meant the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which includes his financial position to pay the purchase price. For contract the conduct has to be properly scrutinized. There is no documentary proof that the plaintiff had ever funds to pay the balance of consideration. Assuming that he had funds he as to prove his willingness to perform his part of the contract." 9. The plaintiff has to establish that he was and is all along ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The facts of the case must demonstrate the readiness and willingness i.e. financial capacity of the plaintiff to pay the price agreed and willingness to get the sale deed executed. There was no such averment in the plaint and the vital evidence on this requirement of law was absent in the present case for to comply with Sec. 16(c) of the Special Relief Act, 1963. 10. In the result, therefore, to answer substantial question of law raised as above, it must be concluded that the lower Appellate Court has exercised discretion correctly and had justification to set aside the decree wrongly granted in favour of the plaintiff. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.