JUDGMENT A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—The respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement of sale dated 17.02.1983 agreeing to sell an item of his property to mother of the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- and received Rs. 5,000/- as an advance. The agreement required the sale to be completed within a period of six months by paying full balance sale consideration amount, with a clear stipulation that the time shall be the essence of the contract and it shall not be open to either of the parties to plead for any extension of time. Stating that Rs. 20,000/- was paid as further advance on 16.03.1983 and a further sum of Rs. 60,000/- was paid on 20.09.1983 and alleging that the 1st defendant/vendor did not perform his part of the contract by delivering title deeds and executing required sale deed, despite issuance of two legal notices, a suit was filed on 22.06.1984, to pass a decree against a sole defendant, to specifically perform the agreement dated 17.02.1983 to do all acts necessary to execute and register the instrument of transfer in respect of the plaint schedule property and put the plaintiff in actual possession of the same and for grant of consequential reliefs. The 1st respondent/1st defendant contested the suit by filing written statement on 27.08.1984. He admitted the agreement of sale dated 17.02.1983 and receipt for cash of Rs. 5,000/- as advance thereunder. It was stated that he had nothing to do with the plaintiff, whom he had not seen. It was further stated that the person who actually dealt with him is M.S. Krishnamurthy, a Revenue Inspector attached to Bangalore South Taluk Office, who had told that he is purchasing the suit property in the name of his mother, Smt. Narasamma, merely as a benamidar or name-lender and that the advance amount was paid by M.S. Krishnamurthy only. The payment of further advance amount of Rs. 20,000/- on 16.03.1983 and Rs. 60,000/- on 20.09.1983 were denied. It was alleged that the balance purchase price was not paid promptly and within the specific period of six months as stipulated in the agreement to sell dated 17.02.1983 and sale transaction was not duly completed in the manner stated in the agreement and therefore, it was stated that the claim of the plaintiff that she was ready and willing to perform her part of contract was false. It was stated that the suit property was sold to a honest and deserving purchaser. 2. Defendant No. 1 sold his two items of properties, including the suit property, under two separate sale deeds dated 15.06.1984 and 27.06.1984, in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 2 respectively. The defendant Nos. 3 and 2, who were subsequently impleaded in the suit, filed separate written statements dated 19.09.1987 and 19.10.1987 and contested the suit. 3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Judge raised the following issues: 1) Whether plaintiff proves that the defendant entered into an agreement on 17-2-83 in his favour by receiving an advance of Rs. 5000/- as contended? 2) Whether defendant proves the plaintiff is a benamidar for her son Sri. Krishnamurthy? 3) Whether plaintiff proves that he had paid further sum of Rs. 20,000/- on 16-3-83 and Rs. 60,000/-on 20.9.83 in part performance of the contract? 4) Whether defendant proves that in the receipts dt. 16-3-83 and 20-9-83 are false and got up one? 5) Whether defendant proves that the time was insist of the contract and then plaintiff does not perform his part of contract? 6) Whether plaintiff proves that he was ready and willing to perform her part of contract? 7) Is plaintiff entitled for relief of specific performance? 8) Whether defendant proves that no cause of action arose? 9) Is defendant entitled for compensatory costs as contended? 10) To what relief/reliefs parties are entitled? 11) What order and decree? 12) Does the plaintiff proves that sale deed by D1, D2 and D3 in respect of property Nos. 103 and 104 on 15-6-84 and 27-6-84 suit property showing different boundaries are not binding on her and her right under the suit agreement is not affected? 13) Do the defendants-2 and 3 prove that they are bona fide purchasers for value without notice of suit agreement? 4. Plaintiff having died, her son M.S. Krishnamurthy, came on record of the suit as a legal representative by stating that the deceased plaintiff executed a Will (Ex. P 13) bequeathing the suit property in his favour. Suit was prosecuted by the said L.R., of the plaintiff, who got himself examined as PW. 1. An expert was examined as PW. 2. Exs. P1 to P 15 was marked through PWs. 1 and 2. For defendant No. 2, her husband and GPA holder deposed as DW. 1. P 13) bequeathing the suit property in his favour. Suit was prosecuted by the said L.R., of the plaintiff, who got himself examined as PW. 1. An expert was examined as PW. 2. Exs. P1 to P 15 was marked through PWs. 1 and 2. For defendant No. 2, her husband and GPA holder deposed as DW. 1. The 3rd defendant got himself examined as DW. 2. Exs. D1 to D25 were marked. 5. After considering the pleadings, evidence and the rival contentions, the learned Trial Judge by a judgment dated 13.09.2002 decreed the suit in part. Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 13 were answered in the affirmative and issue Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 were answered in the negative. As a result, the relief of specific performance of the contract prayed by the plaintiff was rejected. However, the plaintiff was held entitled to receive the advance amount of Rs. 85,000/- from the defendant No. 1, with liquidated damages of Rs. 5,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., on the advance amount of Rs. 85,000/-, from the date of suit till the date of realization. Feeling aggrieved, the L.R., of the plaintiff has filed this appeal. 6. Sri Narendra, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, firstly contended that the learned Trial Judge having found Exs. P1 to P3 as proved, has erred in rejecting the prayer for specific performance. Secondly, the plaintiff having paid substantial amount of Rs. 85,000/- towards sale consideration amount, out of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the learned Trial Judge has erroneously refused the relief of specific performance of contract. He submitted that the plaintiff had no difficulty to arrange the small amount of Rs. 15,000/-, since the Will executed by the plaintiff (Ex. P13), has a recital that the deceased plaintiff had fixed deposit of Rs. 18,000/-. He further submitted that the time was not the essence of the contract, which becomes apparent from the fact that Rs. 20,000/- was received by the defendant No. 1 on 16.03.1983 and further sum of Rs. 60,000/- on 20.09.1983. Thirdly, the defendant No. 1 having not cross-examined PW. 1 nor having entered into witness box and adduced evidence, the learned Trial Judge is unjustified in rejecting the prayer for grant of specific performance. Fourthly, the defendant Nos. 20,000/- was received by the defendant No. 1 on 16.03.1983 and further sum of Rs. 60,000/- on 20.09.1983. Thirdly, the defendant No. 1 having not cross-examined PW. 1 nor having entered into witness box and adduced evidence, the learned Trial Judge is unjustified in rejecting the prayer for grant of specific performance. Fourthly, the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are not bona fide purchasers of the suit property and hence, the denial of relief of specific performance of contract has caused substantial injustice to the appellant. Lastly, the material evidence brought on record has not been correctly appreciated and the findings recorded on the material issues are perverse, illegal and hence, interference in the matter is warranted. 7. Sri Aravinda Babu, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, on the other hand contended that the learned Trial Judge has correctly appreciated the material evidence brought on record and the plaintiff having failed to show readiness and willingness to perform the contract is justified in rejecting the prayer for specific performance of the contract. He submitted that: the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are bona fide purchasers for value and they would suffer irreparable loss and injustice, if the decree passed by the Trial Court is reversed. Learned counsel filed a Memo on 03.05.2013 and submitted that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are ready and willing to deposit the amount as decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff within a period of three months from the date this appeal is decided. Learned counsel made submissions in support of the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment and sought dismissal of the appeal. 8. In view of the rival contentions and record of the suit, which was perused by me, the points for consideration are: i) Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of contract in terms of the sale agreement/Ex. P1? ii) Whether the rejection of the prayer for specific performance of the contract by the learned Trial Judge is justified? 9. P1? ii) Whether the rejection of the prayer for specific performance of the contract by the learned Trial Judge is justified? 9. S. 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act') which lays down that the person seeking specific performance of the contract, must file a suit, wherein he must allege and prove that, he has performed or has been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of contract, which are to be performed by him. The Section makes it clear that the specific performance of the contract cannot be enforced in favour of the person, who fails to aver and prove the readiness and willingness to perform essential terms of the contract. There must be specific pleadings in the plaint and thereafter, the plaintiff must prove the averments made in the plaint. The plaintiff's readiness and willingness must be in accordance with terms of the agreement and the plaintiff-must demonstrate the readiness and willingness to perform the essential part of the contract from the date of entering into the contract till the suit instituted culminates into a decree of the Court. 10. By virtue of S. 20 of the Act, the relief of specific performance lies in the discretion of the Court and that the Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so. The Court must satisfy itself that the circumstances are such that it is equitable to grant decree for specific performance of the contract in favour of the plaintiff and while exercising the discretion, the Court would take into consideration the circumstances of the case, the conduct of the parties, and their respective interests under the contract, which are also of material importance. 11. Smt. Narasamma, mother of PW. 1 instituted the suit against the respondent No. 1 on 22.06.1984, to pass a decree of specific performance in respect of an agreement of sale dated 17.02.1983, marked as Ex. P1. PW. 1 had also entered into another agreement (Ex. P4) to purchase an adjoining item of the suit property from defendant No. 1 on 17.02.1983. Both the said agreements were entered into on 17.02.1983. The time for completion of sale transaction in both the said agreements was six months. The plaintiff having died, PW. 1 came on record as L.R., based on the registered Will of the deceased plaintiff i.e., Ex. P13. Both the said agreements were entered into on 17.02.1983. The time for completion of sale transaction in both the said agreements was six months. The plaintiff having died, PW. 1 came on record as L.R., based on the registered Will of the deceased plaintiff i.e., Ex. P13. L.R., of the plaintiff though has stated that his mother was ever ready to pay the balance sale consideration amount of the sale to the defendant No. 1, no material of whatsoever nature, in proof of the said averment was produced. PW. 1 has admitted that when he entered into an agreement of sale-Ex. P4 with the defendant No. 1, he had applied for loan to the Government and the loan was not sanctioned and hence, he could not complete the sale transaction, which shows that even PW. 1 had no funds to purchase the property. Sri Narendra, learned advocate, submitted that Ex. P13 shows that the deceased plaintiff had Rs. 18,000/- in fixed deposit. From Ex. P13, it is not possible to accept that the deceased plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform the contract. First and foremost, Ex. P13 is a Will, allegedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of PW. 1. If the deceased had sufficient fund to pay the balance sale consideration amount from the date of agreement/Ex. P1, that too by way of deposit in a Bank, nothing prevented PW. 1 from producing the deposit receipt or a certificate of the Bank to prove that the deceased plaintiff did possess the balance sale consideration amount i.e., to prove the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract in terms of Ex. P1. Ex. P13 is a self serving document. Even otherwise, Ex. P13 has not been proved by examination of an attestor. A will has to be proved in terms of S. 63(c) of the Succession Act read with S. 68 of the Evidence Act. Even though S. 71 of the Evidence Act enables a party to produce other evidence to prove the will, the same does not absolve the party of the obligation to examine at-least one of the attestors. Mere production and marking of the alleged Will does not dispense with the proof. In the circumstances, Ex. P13 does not help PW. Even though S. 71 of the Evidence Act enables a party to produce other evidence to prove the will, the same does not absolve the party of the obligation to examine at-least one of the attestors. Mere production and marking of the alleged Will does not dispense with the proof. In the circumstances, Ex. P13 does not help PW. 1 that the deceased plaintiff did possess the balance sale consideration amount from 17.02.1983 and that she was ready and willing to perform her part of contract, all along. There is no credible material whatsoever in nature brought on record of the suit by the plaintiff and her L.R., with regard to readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform the contract i.e., in terms of the sale agreement Ex. P1. 12. Since, Ex. P1 shows that the time was the essence of the contract, the contract agreed thereunder ought to have been completed before 16.08.1983. Since the plaintiff did not perform her part of the contract in terms of Ex. P1, the 1st defendant has sold the suit property under a registered sale deed (Ex. D18) in favour of defendant No. 3 on 15.06.1984. The suit was filed on 22.06.1984 i.e., after the defendant No. 1 sold the suit property in favour of the defendant No. 3 and that the defendant No. 3 was impleaded in the suit on 09.01.1987. 13. The evidence on record does not show that the plaintiff having had the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 95,000/- from 17.02.1983, till the date of filing of the suit on 22.06.1984 and also the money required for stamp duty and registration charges or the capacity to arrange and pay such money, when the contract under Ex. P1 had to be performed. 14. The contention of Sri Narendra, that the defendant No. 1 did not cross-examine PWs. 1 and 2 and also did not step in to the witness box and hence, adverse inference ought to have been drawn by the Trial Court, in my opinion has no merit. It is for the plaintiff, who approached the Court, to prove that she was all along ready and willing to perform the contract. Unless the plaintiff proves that she was ever ready and willing to perform the contract, she is not entitled to the relief in the suit for specific performance. Since the plaintiff through PW. It is for the plaintiff, who approached the Court, to prove that she was all along ready and willing to perform the contract. Unless the plaintiff proves that she was ever ready and willing to perform the contract, she is not entitled to the relief in the suit for specific performance. Since the plaintiff through PW. 1 has failed to establish the readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract in terms of the agreement vide Ex. P1, the learned Trial Judge is justified in answering issue Nos. 6 and 7 in the negative. The findings recorded on issue Nos. 6 and 7 do not suffer from perversity or illegality. The said material issues have been rightly answered in the negative. 15. However, in view of the findings on issue Nos. 1 and 3, the learned Trial Judge is justified in decreeing the suit and directing the refund of advance amount of Rs. 85,000/- with liquidated damages of Rs. 5,000/- along with interest. 16. In view of the above findings, it is unnecessary to record any finding on point No. 2. In view of the Memo dated 03.05.2013 filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 undertaking to deposit the amount as decreed by the Trial Court, there is a need to modify the impugned decree. In the result, the appellant is not entitled to the relief of specific performance of contract. However, the impugned decree is modified.... In view of the Memo dated 03.05.2013 filed in this appeal, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall deposit the sum as decreed, in the Trial Court, within a period of three months. It is made clear that the liability to pay the amount decreed in favour of the plaintiff shall be joint and several. Liberty is reserved to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to recover the deposited sum from respondent No. 1. The appeal is dismissed, subject to the above and there shall be no orders as to costs.