JUDGMENT As per Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. :- 1. This is a defendant's appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 4-8-2008 passed by the 9th Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.18-A/2008 by which suit for specific performance and permanent injunction has been decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff by the Court below. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit registered as Civil Suit No.18A/2008, claiming decree of specific performance, permanent injunction, and recovery of possession on the pleadings that the defendant No.1-Smt. Krishna Devi Soni executed an agreement of sale on 27-06-2005 for sale of property in dispute being land and two storied house constructed thereupon situated at Khasra No.411116 & 411 /17, Patwari Halka No.22, Revenue Circle Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur for consideration of Rs.4 Lakhs and received Rs.51,000/- as advance. It was further pleaded that as per the agreement, the defendant No.I1vendor had agreed to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within 15 days of arrangement of fund through bank advance by the purchaser or in any case within a period of five months from the date of agreement. It was further pleaded that the defendant agreed to get the tenant, who resided at the ground floor of the disputed land, evicted before execution of the sale deed, but no efforts were made in that direction. It was also pleaded that in spite of several request made by the plaintiff for execution of the sale deed as per the agreement of sale, the defendant No.1 avoided to execute the same. Thereafter, the plaintiff got published a notice in the daily newspaper dated 1210-2005 and thereafter also sent notice through Registered Post & U.P.C. on 24-10-2005 requiring the defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed on 07-11-2005. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant No.1 did not come for execution of the sale deed though the plaintiff kept waiting for the defendant No.1 in the office of Registrar, Bilaspur on 07-11-2005. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff has made all attempts and was ready and willing to perform her part of contract as she was in possession of sufficient funds and in spite of several request made, notice sent through Registered Post/U.P.C. and published in the newspaper, the defendant No.1 avoided to execute the sale deed. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff has made all attempts and was ready and willing to perform her part of contract as she was in possession of sufficient funds and in spite of several request made, notice sent through Registered Post/U.P.C. and published in the newspaper, the defendant No.1 avoided to execute the sale deed. It was also pleaded that the defendant No.1 being an old lady, at her request, the husband of the plaintiff co-operated to get the name of defendant No.1 mutuated in the revenue records to facilitate execution of sale deed as per the agreement. Later on, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.2 has started exerting pressure on the vendor/defendant No.1 to sell the disputed house in his favour. It is the apprehension of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 may sell the property to any other person. Non-execution of sale deed gave rise to cause of action for filing the suit claiming decree of specific performance of contract based on agreement dated 27-06-2005 and for decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from alienating the property in dispute in favour of defendant No.2/or any other person as also for possession of the property in dispute upon due execution of the sale deed. 3. The appellant/defendant No.1 resisted the claim of the plaintiff on pleadings inter alia that she had never executed any agreement of sale nor received any advance and she being an old lady, taking undue advantage of her loneliness, agreement of sale has been prepared which is void. It was further pleaded by the defendant No.1 that the agreement of sale in favour of defendant No.2 was executed on 15-04-2005 and the plaintiff, in full knowledge 'of the above fact, with an intention to somehow grab the property, prepared a false agreement. It was further pleaded that the defendant No.1 was taken to Notary by the plaintiff and her husband and upon payment arrears of rent of Rs.7,200/- in the name of agreement of tenancy and fixation of rent, her signatures were obtained on the stamp papers. It was neither explained nor read over to her. It was further pleaded that the agreement' was void for uncertainty in view of the terms and conditions regarding bank finance and execution of sale deed within fifteen days from the availability of bank finance or five months. It was neither explained nor read over to her. It was further pleaded that the agreement' was void for uncertainty in view of the terms and conditions regarding bank finance and execution of sale deed within fifteen days from the availability of bank finance or five months. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff herself has not performed her part of the contract under the agreement of' sale. 4. The defendant No.2 pleaded that the defendant No.1 neither executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff nor received advance of Rs.51 ,000/-.As pleaded by defendant No.2, in fact the defendant No.1 had entered into an agreement of sale on 15-04-2005 for sale of house in dispute for consideration of Rs.4,25,000/- in his favour and false document dated 27-06-2005 has been prepared to nullify the earlier agreement of sale executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. 5. The learned trial Court after framing as many as eight issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties, examined plaintiff and defendant witnesses. Upon consideration of pleadings of the parties and oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment dated 04-08-2008 recorded a finding that the agreement of sale was executed on 27-06-2005 by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of contract. The learned trial Court therefore allowed the suit and granted decree of specific performance in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff to the effect that the defendant No.1 shall execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving balance amount of consideration within a period of one month and also granted permanent injunction restraining 'he plaintiff from selling the house in dispute to any other person. The learned trial Court also passed a decree for vacant possession in favour of the plaintiff. 6, Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the appellant/ defendant No.1 has filed the instant appeal assailing the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below. 7. The learned trial Court also passed a decree for vacant possession in favour of the plaintiff. 6, Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the appellant/ defendant No.1 has filed the instant appeal assailing the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below. 7. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the finding recorded by the learned trial Court on issue No. 1 & 2 on the ground that the learned trial Court erred in holding that the appellant/defendant No.1 had executed an agreement of sale on 27-06-2005 for sale of house in dispute in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs- 4,00,000/- and received Rs.51,000/- as advance, and thereafter, erred in holding that it has not been proved that the agreement dated 27-06-2005 was got executed by playing fraud. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that execution of agreement of sale dated 27-06-2005 was specifically denied, it was the burden of the plaintiff to prove the same and the plaintiff has failed to prove due and proper execution of the agreement of sale dated 27-06-2005. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is material difference in the statement of plaintiff witnesses namely Dr. Smt. Shashiprabha Gupta, PW-3 and her husband Rajesh Gupta, PW -4 with regard to an important fact as to whether contents of agreement of sale dated 27-06-2005 were read over to appellant. Learned counsel further argued that the plaintiff had failed to prove due and proper execution as Om Prakash Soni, PW-2 and Rajesh Gupta, PW-4 who are attesting witnesses have not supported the case of the plaintiff. Learned counsel further argued that there is material discrepancy regarding the period for execution of the sale deed inasmuch as in the Notary Panji, Ex.P-1, the period has been described as three months whereas in the agreement of sale dated 27-06-2005 Ex.P-2 different stipulation has been made. According to learned counsel for the appellant, this material discrepancy establishes that the agreement of sale was never executed by the appellant and it proves the case of the defendant that her signatures were obtained without reading over the document to her by falsely stating that the deed of rent is being executed. Learned counsel further argues that the plaintiff witnesses Dr. Learned counsel further argues that the plaintiff witnesses Dr. Smt. Shashiprabha Gupta, PW-3 and Rajesh Gupta, PW4 have stated that the transaction was finalized at Bilaspur which is inconsistent with the pleadings in para-6 (C) of the plaint and thus the evidence on record is inconsistent with pleadings. 8. The second limb of the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that unless the plaintiff avers and proves that he was ready and willing to perform her part of contract as per the agreement of sale, according td true construction, no decree for specific performance of contract could be granted. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the plaintiff has failed to aver and prove that she was ready and willing to perform her part of contract as per the agreement of sale dated 27-06-2005 according to its true construction. Learned counsel for the appellant, referring to provisions contained in Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, submits that the requirement of pleading and proof of readiness and willingness have to be strictly construed. Learned counsel argued that that the plaintiff was required to intimate the defendant No.1 within 15 days of bank finance made available which was a clear stipulation in the agreement but the plaintiff has failed to perform her part of contract according to such stipulation of intimation within 15 days of bank finance from the bank. Learned counsel also argued that the plaintiff has neither pleaded nor proved that she was ready and willing to perform her part of contract to purchase the house in dispute by paying balance amount of consideration, and therefore, on this ground also, the decree of specific performance, permanent injunction and possession granted by the learned trial Court in favour 'of the respondent/plaintiff is unsustainable in the eye of law. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon various authorities i.e. Dattatraya Vs. Rangnath Gopalrao Kawathekar, (dead) by his legal representatives and others, Kali Devi and another Vs. Brundaban Malik, Ramjan Khan and others Vs. Baba Raghunath Dass and other, HP. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa (Dead) by LRS. and others, Bishandayal and Sons Vs. State of Orissa and others, Pukhraj D. Jain and others vs. G. Gopalakrishna and Bajranglal and another Vs. Purushottamdas Puranlal Narele. 9. Brundaban Malik, Ramjan Khan and others Vs. Baba Raghunath Dass and other, HP. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa (Dead) by LRS. and others, Bishandayal and Sons Vs. State of Orissa and others, Pukhraj D. Jain and others vs. G. Gopalakrishna and Bajranglal and another Vs. Purushottamdas Puranlal Narele. 9. On the other hand, Shri Prafull Bharat, learned counsel for the respondent No. 11 Plaintiff has supported the decree by arguing that the defendant-Krishna Devi Soni had executed agreement of sale dated 27-06-2005 Ex.P-2 and it was fully within her knowledge. According to him, the plaintiff has clearly and specifically pleaded in the plaint with regard to the execution of the agreement of sale by the defendant-Krishna Devi Soni and there is overwhelming evidence on record which clearly establish that the defendant Krishna Devi Soni intended to sell the property in dispute for a consideration of Rs.4 Lakhs and had also received advance of Rs.51,000/-. It has been argued that in addition to defendant's clear admission that she has signed the agreement of sale dated 27-06-2005 Ex.P-2, not only plaintiff witnesses namely Surendra Kumar Gupta, P.W.1, Om Prakash Soni, P.W.2, Dr. Shashi Prabha Gupta, P.W.3 (Plaintiff) and Rajesh Gupta, P. W.4 have deposed and testified due and proper execution, but also admits that she was taken to Court on 27-06-2005 and agreement was prepared and was testified in the presence of notary. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 reinforces his argument by referring to testimony of defendant-Krishna Devi Soni wherein she has admitted her signatures on the agreement of sale EX.P-2 and also that she reads "Ramayan" & "Geeta". Learned counsel for respondent No.1 further submits that the defendant's plea that her signatures were obtained on the document by stating that the deed of rent is being executed, was an afterthought, not based on cogent evidence available on record and also belied by her own conduct. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 further submits that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of contract and she has paid advance of Rs.51 ,000/- .and contacted defendant-Krishna Devi Soni for execution of sale deed and when she avoided, got published notice in the newspaper and also attended Registrar's office under intimation and when ultimately defendant-Krishna Devi Soni did not execute the sale deed, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract based on agreement of sale dated 27-06-2005. He further submits that the plaintiff possessed sufficient funds and it has been clearly pleaded and also deposed that after arrangement of funds through bank advance, defendant Krishna Devi Soni was duly intimated. Thus, the plaintiff has fulfilled the statutory requirement of readiness and willingness as stipulated in Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It has been strenuously submitted that from the pleadings and evidence on record, it is firmly established that the plaintiff has performed her part of contract and made all attempts to seek execution of sale deed and the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in arriving at finding with regard to due and proper execution of the agreement of sale dated 27-06-2005 Ex.P-2 as also with regard to readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff. According to him, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record and the appeal is without substance. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties before us and carefully perused the material available on record. 11. The respondent-plaintiff-Smt. Shashi Prabha Gupta specifically pleaded in para-3 of her plaint that the defendant-Krishna Devi Soni executed an agreement of sale dated 27-06-2005 in favour of plaintiff for sell of the property in dispute for a consideration of Rs.4 Lakhs and received Rs.51,000/- as advance. It is specifically pleaded that the defendant agreed, to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff at the most within five'" months. In order to prove the due and proper execution of agreement of sale dated 27-06-2005, the plaintiff has examined as many as four witnesses. Advocate/Notary-Surendra Kumar Gupta, P.W.! has clearly deposed in his testimony that on 27-06-2005, an agreement of sale was executed before him by defendant-Krishna Devi Smt in favour of the plaintiff-Smt. Shashi Prabha Gupta and an entry to this effect was made at S. No.4364 of the Register. He has also deposed that am Prakash Soni S/o Lallu Ram Soni had identified the parties and at the relevant time Rajesh S/o B. P. Gupta was present. The original of Notary Register Ex.P.1 was also produced. The said document in relevant entries at S.No.4364 contains the signature of parties and his own signature. He has also deposed that am Prakash Soni S/o Lallu Ram Soni had identified the parties and at the relevant time Rajesh S/o B. P. Gupta was present. The original of Notary Register Ex.P.1 was also produced. The said document in relevant entries at S.No.4364 contains the signature of parties and his own signature. In his cross-examination, he has clearly deposed that the contents of the agreement dated 27-06-2005 Ex.P-2 were read over to the parties. He has also stated that he has not personally known the parties and has denied suggestion that the plaintiff-Smt. Shashi Prabha Gupta is her relation. He has clearly stated that Om Prakash Soni, P. W.2 introduced the parties before him. Surendra Kumar Gupta, P.W.1 is the notary and is an independent witness and there is no reason to disbelieve his testrmony. 12. Om Prakash Soni, P.W.2 has clearly deposed that he knows Krishna Devi Soni being her neighbour and he appeared as witness of Krishna Devi Soni and signed the agreement of sale dated 27-06-2005. He has stated that he met Surendra Kumar Gupta, P.W.I for the first time on that day. In his cross-examination, he has denied}he suggestion that parties intended to execute the deed of rent but has clearly deposed that Krishna Devi Soni told her that she intended to execute the agreement for sale of her house and has signed the agreement after reading and understanding the contents of the same. At that time, husband of the plaintiff-Smt. Shashi Prabha Gupta was also present as witness. He has denied suggestion that Krishna Devi Soni can only sign and cannot read. He has further deposed in very categoric words that the agreement was read over to Krishan Devi Soni by the Notary. Om Prakash Soni, P.W.2 is the neighbour of defendant-Krishna Devi Soni and according to him, he was brought as witness of Krishna Devi Soni by her. His testimony, thus, clearly establishes that Smt. Krishna Devi Soni had full knowledge of the contents of agreement of sale dated 27-06-2005 and she was fully conscious of the terms of the agreement. 13. The plaintiff-Smt. Shashi Prabha Gupta, P.W.3 has also deposed that agreement for sale was read over to defendant-Krishna Devi Soni even at the time when the document was being prepared and later on contents of the agreement were read over by the Notary. 13. The plaintiff-Smt. Shashi Prabha Gupta, P.W.3 has also deposed that agreement for sale was read over to defendant-Krishna Devi Soni even at the time when the document was being prepared and later on contents of the agreement were read over by the Notary. She has also testified the presence of Om Prakash Soni, P.W.2 as also her husband Rajesh Gupta, P.W.4. 14. Rajesh Gupta, P.W.4, who is the husband of the plaintiff-Smt. Shashi Prabha Gupta, has also clearly deposed in his testimony that the agreement EX.P-2 was executed at Katni and while the document was prepared and typed, the contents were being read over to defendant-Krishna Devi Soni. 15. The appellant/defendant has assailed the finding recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to execution of agreement of sale dated 2706-2005 on the submission that there is material difference in the testimony of plaintiff witnesses with regard to execution of the agreement of s tie We are not impressed with this argument in view of what has been deposed and testified by the plaintiff witnesses which have been referred to above by us. There is overwhelming evidence on record that the defendant-Krishna Devi Soni intended to sell the house in dispute in favour of plaintiff-Smt. Shashi Prabha Gupta and with that intent and being fully conscious executed the agreement of sale dated 27-06-2005 before the Notary where Om Prakash Soni was present and signed the agreement as witness brought by Krishna Devi Soni herself as also Rajesh Gupta, husband of the plaintiff-Smt. Shashi Prabha Gupta as her witness. On this aspect, Notary-Surendra Kumar Gupta, P.W.I, Om Prakash Soni, P.W.2 and Smt. Shashi Prabha Gupta-P.W.3 have clearly stated that agreement of sale was read over to Krishna Devi Soni. Further, there is unimpeachable evidence on record that even while agreement of sale was being prepared and typed, the contents of the same were read over to the defendant Krishna Devi Soni and she had full knowledge of the contents of the agreement which she testified before the Notary. This fact is clearly borne out from the contents of Notary Register which contains signature of Krishna Devi Soni. In relevant column, the nature of document has been stated. The defendant Krishna Devi Soni has nowhere stated either in her evidence, pleadings or in her testimony in this regard. This fact is clearly borne out from the contents of Notary Register which contains signature of Krishna Devi Soni. In relevant column, the nature of document has been stated. The defendant Krishna Devi Soni has nowhere stated either in her evidence, pleadings or in her testimony in this regard. It is, thus, established that Krishna Devi Soni had full knowledge about the contents of the agreement of sale dated 27-06-2005. 16. "Execution" denotes conscious act of subscribing to a document. From the evidence available on record, it is clearly proved that the defendant-Krishna Devi Soni consciously put her signature on the agreement dated 27-06-2005 after having known and understood the contents. This fact has been proved from the evidence available on record and the persons, who are present and have signed the document Ex.P-2, have clearly deposed that Krishna Devi Soni intended to execute an agreement of sale to sell her house in favour of the plaintiff-Smt. Shashi Prabha Gupta and was fully conscious of the contents of the document as the same was read over to her. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has stressed that there is material difference in the testimony of the plaintiff witnesses with regard to the fact as to whether the contents of the agreement dated 27-06-2005 EX.P-2 were read over to the defendant-Krishna Devi Soni. We do not find any force in his submission. Surendra Kumar Gupta, P.W.1, Om Prakash Soni, P.W.2, Dr. Shashi Prabha Gupta, P. W.3 (Plaintiff) have clearly deposed that the contents of the document were read over to the defendant-Krishna Devi Soni. Rajesh Gupta, P.W.4 has clearly deposed in his cross-examination that the agreement EX.P-2 was prepared and typed in the Court (Kachhari) upon instructions of all the respective parties and the defendant-Krishna Devi Soni told him that agreement should be made in the name of his wife i.e. Shashi Prabha Gup a. After the agreement was typed, it was read over to defendant-Krishna Devi Soni, who expressed her satisfaction. It has been clearly deposed by the defendant-Krishna Devi Soni that contents of the documents were read over to her before notary. In fact, a suggestion was made that witness Om Prakash Soni, P.W.2 had read the agreement and it was read over to Notary which has been denied. It has been clearly deposed by the defendant-Krishna Devi Soni that contents of the documents were read over to her before notary. In fact, a suggestion was made that witness Om Prakash Soni, P.W.2 had read the agreement and it was read over to Notary which has been denied. This cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be incongruous to clear and unimpeachable testimony of other three witnesses who have clearly stated with precision and certainty that the contents of the agreement dated 27-06-2005 Ex.P-2 were read over to defendant-Krishna Devi Soni. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that because of so-called difference in version, entire evidence to prove execution of the agreement ought to be disbelieved A careful reading of the' cross-examination of Rajesh Gupta, P.W.4 clearly discloses that various suggestions were made to the witness with regard to terms of agreement of sale executed between the parties on 27-06-2005. We are unable to appreciate the other submission that as different period for execution of agreement of sale deed has been written in the Notary Register, it should lead to a conclusion that there was no agreement of sale intended to be executed by the defendant Krishna Devi Soni. Columns in the Notary Register only contain the description relating to the nature of the document. Merely because different period for execution has been mentioned, other unimpeachable evidence of execution of agreement of sale cannot be discarded or disbelieved. On the contrary, the defendant-Krishna Devi Soni also put her signature in the notary register against the column which contains recital with regard to the nature of the document which completely dislodges the defence of the defendant-Krishna Devi Soni and establishes execution of agreement of sale dated 27.6.2005. It has also been submitted that there is inconsistency in the pleadings in para-6 (c) of the plaint and the evidence of Smt. Shashi Prabha Gupta, P.W.-3 and Rajesh Gupta, P.W. 4. We are also not impressed by the submission as there is no discrepancy with regard to the place where the• agreement was executed. In para-6 (c) of the plaint, it has been pleaded that upon receiving an advance of Rs. 51,000/-, the defendant-Krishna Devi Soni got the agreement of sale executed before the Notary. We are also not impressed by the submission as there is no discrepancy with regard to the place where the• agreement was executed. In para-6 (c) of the plaint, it has been pleaded that upon receiving an advance of Rs. 51,000/-, the defendant-Krishna Devi Soni got the agreement of sale executed before the Notary. Smt. Shashi Prabha Gupta, P.W.-3 has clearly deposed in her testimony that the agreement was executed at Katni not at Bilaspur. Rajesh Gupta, P. WA has also stated that the agreement was executed at Katni. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, deserves to be rejected. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant sought to place reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dattatraya1 (supra). In para-5 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that ordinarily no one is expected to sign a document without knowing its contents, but if it is pleaded that the party who signed the document did not know the contents of the document then it may in certain circumstances be necessary for the party seeking to prove the document to place material before the Court to satisfy it that the party who signed the document had the knowledge of its contents. Applying the aforesaid principles of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and in view of the above discussion of evidence available on record, we find that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that the defendant - Krishna Devi Soni, who had signed the agreement of sale, had knowledge of its contents. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant has further relied upon the judgment of High Court of Orissa in the case of Kali Devi and another Vs. Brundaban Malik, wherein in para-8 of the judgment, it has been held that where the document is purported to have been executed by a Paradanashin or illiterate woman, the parties relying upon it and seeking to bind the lady with the contents thereof, must not only formally prove the document but must in addition prove that the contents were read over and explained to the lady- executant. We are in respectful agreement with the proposition laid down therein, but hasten to add that in the present case the defendant herself admits that she reads "Ramayan & Geeta" and another witness Omprakash Soni, P.W.2, witnesses to agreement of sale dated 27.6.2005 brought by Smt. Krishna Devi Soni herself has denied such a suggestion that she cannot read. In any case from the plaintiff evidence which has been discussed by us, it is apparent that the contents of the document i.e. agreement of sale dated 27.6.2005 Ex.P.2 were read over to Smt. Krishna Devi Soni not only when it was being typed but also when it was brought before Notary. 20. In the matter of Ramjan Khan and others Vs. Baba Raghunath Dass and other, it has been laid down in para-15 of the said judgment that it is settled that if an illiterate woman affixes her thumb mark to a document, the onus to prove that the document was properly explained to the person affixing her thumb mark so as to make her understand its true import is on the person relying on the document. 21. In view of the above discussion, we need not deal further as the proposition laid down in the present case is on the similar lines as laid down in the case of Kali Devi (supra). 22. In view of the above discussion of the pleadings and evidence of record, we are unable to accept the submission of the appellant that the plaintiff has failed to prove due and proper execution of agreement of sale dated 2706-2005 Ex.P-2, and therefore, find that the finding of the learned trial Court on this aspect, is based on just and proper appreciation of evidence on record. 23. The respondent-plaintiff-Smt Shashi Prabha Gupta in her pleadings I has specifically pleaded that the advance of Rs.51,000/- was paid to the defendant and the defendant was approached for getting the sale deed executed time and again. On plaintiff's insistence, the defendant-Krishna Devi Soni firstly fixed 06-10-2005 and then 19-10-2005 as the date for execution of sale deed and on all these dates, plaintiff attended the Registrar's office at Bilaspur but defendant did not turn up. On plaintiff's insistence, the defendant-Krishna Devi Soni firstly fixed 06-10-2005 and then 19-10-2005 as the date for execution of sale deed and on all these dates, plaintiff attended the Registrar's office at Bilaspur but defendant did not turn up. It has been clearly averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is still ready and willing for execution of sale deed and she is possessed of necessary funds but because of avoiding and delay tactics, sale deed could not be executed. It has been specifically pleaded that the plaintiff got published notice in newspapers "Danik Nava Bharat" and "Hari Bhoomi" on 21-10-2005 and thereafter sent notice dated 24-10-2005 through her advocate, for execution of sale deed on 07-11-2005 at Bilaspur by receiving balance amount. While notice sent under postal certificate, was received, defendant refused to take the notice sent through registered post. On 07-11-2005, the plaintiff attended the office of Registrar at Bilaspur from 11 A.M. to 4 P.M. but defendant did not turn up. It has also been pleaded that for the purpose of mutation, the plaintiff extended help and cooperation and submitted necessary application and got mutation done in favour of the defendant-Krishna Devi Soni. The plaintiff Shashi Prabha Gupta, who has examined herself as P. W.3 has also deposed that necessary funds were arranged and thereafter due intimation of this fact was also given. The plaintiff has also produced the copy of B-1 as Ex.P-3, Khasra Panchshala as Ex.P-4, Registered notice, Ex.P-5, Acknowledgement of Registered Notice, EX.P-6 sent through Post, Postal. Certificate, Ex.P-7, Original Envelop of Registered notice sent through post Ex.P-8, Objection submitted before the Registrar Ex.P-9 and EX.P-I0 as also general notice published in the newspaper as Ex.P-11. Rajesh Gupta, P. WA has deposed that an advance of Rs. 51,000/- was paid by the defendant-Krishna Devi Soni and he and his wife i.e. Plaintiff-Shashi Prabha Gupta made all efforts to get the name of defendant duly mutated to facilitate execution of sale deed. He has further deposed that after mutation he and the plaintiff asked the defendant-Krishna Devi Soni to execute the sale deed time and again but she avoided where after notice was published in the newspaper and registered notice also sent to the defendant requiring her to execute the sale deed with due intimation that she is possessed of sufficient funds through bank finance. 24. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant forcefully submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled to decree for specific performance of contract as she ha~ failed to prove her readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract: which operates as bar grafted under Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In support of the submission, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of HP. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa (Dead) by LRS. and others, Bishandayal and Sons Vs. State of Orissa and others5, Pukhraj D. Jain and others Vs. G. Gopalakrishna6. 25. In the case of Bishandayal and Son; (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the facts of the case and the finding recorded thereon that the condition regarding withdrawal of the suit was a condition precedent and as the appellant did not withdraw the suit they could not be said to be ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement, held that the claim for specific performance could not have been enforced. The said authority does not help the appellant in any manner in the present case. 26. In the case of Pukhraj D. Jain and other (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 6 of the judgment held that Section-16( c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 lays down that the specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person 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. It has been further held that Explanation (ii) to this sub-section provides that the plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction. The requirement of this provision is that the plaintiff must aver that he has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract. Therefore, not only should there be such an averment in the plaint but the surrounding circumstances must also indicate that the readiness and willingness continue from the date of the contract till the hearing of the suit. Therefore, not only should there be such an averment in the plaint but the surrounding circumstances must also indicate that the readiness and willingness continue from the date of the contract till the hearing of the suit. It is well settled that equitable remedy of specific performance cannot be had on the basis of pleadings which do not contain averments of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his contract in terms of Forms 47 and 48 C.P.C. 27. The aforesaid well settled legal position has been further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of HP. pyarejan4 (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon its earlier decision and held as below: "13. The basic principle behind Section 16 (c) read with Explanation (ii) is that any person seeking benefit of the specific performance of contract must manifest that his conduct has been blemishless throughout entitling him to the specific relief. The provision imposes a personal bar. The Court is to grant relief on the basis of the conduct of the person seeking relief. If the pleadings manifest that the conduct of the plaintiff entitles him to get the relief on perusal of the plaint he should not be denied the relief. 14. Section 16 (c) of the Act mandates the plaintiff to aver in the plaint and establish as the fact by evidence aliunde that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The principles were recently elaborated in Aniglase Yohannan v. Ramlatha, (20C 5) 7 SCC 534. 28. We have considered the pleadings and evidence on record as also applying the well settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the plaintiff's pleading regarding readiness and willingness and the overwhelming evidence on record, we have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff has succeeded in fulfilling the statutory requirement of readiness and willingness, as stipulated in Section 16( c) of the Specific Relief Act as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above quoted decisions. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to readiness and willingness of the plaintiff are not only based on application of correct principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court but also based on legally admissible and unimpeachable evidence in this regard and we SCC no reason to interfere with the same. 29. As an upshot of the above discussion and the findings recorded by us, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. The appellant shall bear the costs throughout. Appeal Dismissed.