JUDGMENT : The unsuccessful plaintiff is before this court against the judgment and decree dated 11/09/2012 made in R.A. No. 13/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) & JMFC, Chinthamani confirming the judgment and decree dated 21/12/2006 made in O.S. No. 140/2004 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chinthamani dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance. 2. The present appellant who is the plaintiff in the trial court had filed suit for specific performance to enforce the agreement dated 28/06/1986 contending that the respondent/ defendant was the owner of the suit schedule property. He has executed agreement in favour of the plaintiff for sale consideration of Rs.9,000/- and the defendant has received an advance amount of Rs.4,000/- on the date of agreement. Inpsite of repeated requests made, he has not executed the sale deed. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract etc. Hence, he has filed the suit. 3. The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that he never executed the sale agreement in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property as alleged. Further he contended that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the same. There was misunderstanding between the family members. Therefore, he was constrained to file a suit for partition and separate possession in the year 1998 in O.S. No.146/1998 and the said suit came to be decreed in terms of the compromise petition on 09/08/2001. He further contended that he also filed a suit in O.S. No. 119/2004 against the present plaintiff for declaration, injunction and possession. The said suit came to be decreed on 21/12/2006 which was confirmed in R.A. No.13/2007 on 11/09/2012. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the suit. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 28/06/1986 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- on 28/06/1986 as advance amount under the agreement? (3) Whether the plaintiff proves that at the time of execution of the agreement there was Government prohibition for registration of suit schedule property? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- on 28/06/1986 as advance amount under the agreement? (3) Whether the plaintiff proves that at the time of execution of the agreement there was Government prohibition for registration of suit schedule property? (4) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has paid balance amount of Rs.5001/- on 10/07/1986 to the defendant under the agreement? (5) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has delivered the vacant possession of the suit schedule property on 10/07/1986? (6) Whether the defendant proves that the alleged sale agreement is barred by time as such alleged agreement is void and suit is barred by limitation? (7) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff has given wrong boundaries to the suit schedule property? (8) Whether the defendant proves that he is the owner and person in possession of the property narrated in para 9 of the written statement? (9) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief? (10) What order or decree? 5. In order to substantiate the plaintiff’s case, the plaintiff is examined as PW1 and two witnesses were examined as PW2 and 3 and marked documents as Ex.P1 to P6(b). The defendant is examined as DW1 and marked documents as Ex. D1 to D11. 6. The trial court considering the entire material both on oral and documentary evidence, has recorded a specific finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant has executed agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 28/06/1986 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property and also failed to prove that he has paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- on 28/06/1986 as advance amount under the agreement. The plaintiff further failed to prove that at the time of execution of the agreement there was government’s prohibition for registration of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff further failed to prove that he has paid a balance amount of Rs.5,001/- on 10/07/1986 to the defendant under the agreement. The plaintiff further failed to prove that the defendant has delivered the vacant possession of the suit schedule property on 10/07/1986. The trial court further recorded a finding that the defendant proved that the alleged sale agreement is barred by time as the alleged agreement is void and the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff further failed to prove that the defendant has delivered the vacant possession of the suit schedule property on 10/07/1986. The trial court further recorded a finding that the defendant proved that the alleged sale agreement is barred by time as the alleged agreement is void and the suit is barred by limitation. Further, the defendant proved that the plaintiff has given wrong boundaries of the suit schedule property and also held that the defendant is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property as enumerated in para 9 of the Written Statement and ultimately the trial court dismissed the suit. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff filed R.A. No. 13/2007 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) & JMFC, Chinthamani who after framing necessary issues as contemplated under Order 41 rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After considering the entire material on record by the impugned judgment and decree the appellate court has dismissed the appeal. 8. The appellant being unsatisfied with the judgment & decree passed by the courts below has preferred the present appeal. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 10. Sri. Raja, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has contended that both the courts below have committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff without considering both oral and documentary evidence on record. He further contended that both the courts below have erred in holding that the suit is barred by limitation when the defendant has not refused to execute the sale deed. 11. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff on 16.10.2004 is within time. He further contended that both the Courts below erred in holding that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract without noticing the fact that the appellant had issued notice on 23.09.2004 and filed the suit on 16.10.2004, within time. Therefore, he sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the Courts below. 12. Therefore, he sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the Courts below. 12. Per contra, Smt. Divya, learned counsel appearing for Smt. S. Susheela, learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree of the Courts below and specifically contended that the plaintiff has filed the suit after lapse of more than 18 years and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation and the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as contemplated under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. Therefore, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the case and accordingly the dismissed the suit which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Learned counsel further contended that this Court, in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. 13. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully. 14. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant is the owner of the property in question and executed an agreement on 28.06.1986 agreeing to execute a registered sale deed, after lifting of Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966. Inspite of notice, the defendant has not executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff though he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is the specific case of the defendant that he never executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff constantly interfered with the possession of the defendant, defendant was constrained to file a suit in O.S. No. 119/2014 for declaration, possession and injunction. The said suit was decreed on 21.12.2006 and same was confirmed in R.A.No.14/2007 on 11.09.2012. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submits that against the said judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.14/2017, RSA No.185/2013 is filed before this Court and the same is pending, no interim order is granted in the said appeal. 15. The specific case of the plaintiff is that the defendant executed an agreement on 28.06.1986, as can be seen from sale agreement/Ex.P.5. According to the plaintiff, defendant executed an agreement of sale, but defendant has denied the same. 15. The specific case of the plaintiff is that the defendant executed an agreement on 28.06.1986, as can be seen from sale agreement/Ex.P.5. According to the plaintiff, defendant executed an agreement of sale, but defendant has denied the same. Admittedly, suit is filed on 16.10.2004 after lapse of 18 years. Plaintiff has not produced any material document to show that at the time of agreement, Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966, was in force and documents produced by the defendant as per Exs.D.2 to D.5 and D.6 to D.8 and RTC, mutation extract indicates that he is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is also not in dispute that, if plaintiff wants to enforce the agreement, he should enforce the same within a reasonable period of time and if not, condition was imposed. If condition is not imposed from the date of refusal, he has to file suit within a reasonable period as contemplated under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Admittedly, in the present case, both the Courts below concurrently held that plaintiff failed to prove that defendant has executed any agreement and suit filed after lapse of 18 years is clearly barred by limitation, in view of the provisions of Article 54 of the Limitation Act. 16. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. But no material is produced before the Court that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract as contemplated under the provisions of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. 17. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act mandates, “readiness and willingness” on the part of the plaintiff and it is a condition precedent for obtaining relief of grant of specific performance. It is also clear that in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must allege and prove a continuous “readiness and willingness” to perform the contract on his part from the date of the contract. The onus is on the plaintiff. This is envisaged in the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in J.P. Builders vs. A. Ramadas Rao reported in (2011)1 SCC 429 . 18. Admittedly, according to the plaintiff, agreement is executed on 28.06.1986. He has not issued any notice till 23.09.2004 nearly for 18 years. The onus is on the plaintiff. This is envisaged in the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in J.P. Builders vs. A. Ramadas Rao reported in (2011)1 SCC 429 . 18. Admittedly, according to the plaintiff, agreement is executed on 28.06.1986. He has not issued any notice till 23.09.2004 nearly for 18 years. It clearly indicates that he has not made any efforts to get the sale deed executed in terms of the alleged agreement. So inference can be drawn that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, as contemplated under Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act. 19. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff examined two witnesses as P.W.2 and 3, in support of his case. But they were not available for cross examination. Therefore, both the Courts below rightly discarded the evidence of P.W.2 and 3. 20. Considering the entire material on record, both the Courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant has executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 28.06.1986 agreeing to sell the suit property and also failed to prove that he has paid advance amount and further failed to prove that at the time of execution of agreement, there was no prohibition of registration of the property and also failed to prove that defendant has delivered vacant possession of the property on 10.07.1986 after receiving advance amount and both the Courts below concurrently held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is clearly barred by time. The defendant has proved that he is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property. The said findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are based on oral evidence of P.W.1 to 3 and D.W.1 and material documents Exs.P.1 to 6(b) and Exs.D.1 to D.11. 21. It is also undisputed fact that defendant filed O.S. No. 119/2004 for declaration and possession and permanent injunction against the plaintiff. The said suit came to be decreed on 21.12.2006 and it was confirmed in R.A.No.14/2007 on 11.09.2012. Though an appeal in RSA 186/2013 was filed before this Court, the same is pending. 22. The material documents clearly indicates that plaintiff failed to prove that defendant has executed an agreement. Both the Courts below concurrently held that suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation since filed after 18 years. Though an appeal in RSA 186/2013 was filed before this Court, the same is pending. 22. The material documents clearly indicates that plaintiff failed to prove that defendant has executed an agreement. Both the Courts below concurrently held that suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation since filed after 18 years. The judgment and decree of the Courts below is based on the oral and documentary evidence on record. The same is in accordance with law. The appellant has not made out any substantial question of law to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below exercising power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.