JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J. The present appeal is against the judgment of First Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 158 of 1999 by which the judgment of trial Court is set aside and decree of specific performance was granted in favour of the respondent. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal can be summarized as under (The parties shall be referred by their status in the trial Court): The plaintiff (respondent) and the defendant (appellant) entered into an agreement dated 19.06.1996 by which the defendant (appellant) agreed to sale his agricultural land bearing Survey No. 10/1- B area admeasuring 1 H 62 R for consideration of Rs.80,000/-. The defendant (appellant) has accepted Rs.60,000/- towards earnest money. The agreement of sale was executed in the presence of witnesses. As per the agreement, it was agreed that the Sale Deed was to be executed on or before 02.04.1997. 3. As per the case of the plaintiff (respondent), the defendant (appellant) failed to execute Sale Deed on 02.04.1997 and, therefore, notice was issued on 02.06.1997 in daily news paper "Desshonnati". Even then, the defendant (appellant) failed to execute the Sale Deed. Therefore, the plaintiff (respondent) filed Special Civil Suit No. 337 of 1997 before Civil Judge Senior Division, Akola (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court" for the sake of brevity) for specific performance of contract. The defendant (appellant) appeared in the said suit and filed his written statement at Exh. 13. As per the defence of the defendant (appellant), his father was suffering from heart-attack. Therefore, he was in need of money. The plaintiff (respondent) used to do the business of money lending. The defendant (appellant) obtained hand-loan of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff (respondent) and towards security, an Agreement of Sale was reduced into writing. 4. Issues were framed by the trial Court at Exh. 14. Both parties adduced their respective evidences. After hearing both the sides, the trial Court partly decreed the suit holding that plaintiff (respondent) is entitled to recover amount of Rs.60,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% from 19.06.1996 till the realization of entire amount. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of trial Court, the respondent has filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 158 of 1999 before 3rd Additional District Judge, Akola (hereinafter referred to as the "First Appellate Court" for the sake of brevity) claiming specific performance of contract. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of trial Court, the respondent has filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 158 of 1999 before 3rd Additional District Judge, Akola (hereinafter referred to as the "First Appellate Court" for the sake of brevity) claiming specific performance of contract. The First Appellate Court come to the conclusion that plaintiff (respondent) has proved his case and allowed the appeal, decreed the Special Civil Suit No. 337 of 1997 and directed the defendant (appellant) to execute the sale deed of field bearing Survey No. 10/1-B area admeasuring 1 H 62 R of Mauza Lavkhed after receipt of balance consideration of Rs.20,000/-. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant (appellant). 6. Heard learned Counsel Shri M. G. Sarda for the appellant (original defendant). He has pointed out the cross-examination of plaintiff (respondent) and submitted that the plaintiff (respondent) was not having money to get execute the Sale Deed from the defendant (appellant). Sale Deed was to be executed on 02.04.1997. Till 02.04.1997, there is nothing on record to show about any steps taken by the plaintiff (respondent) for the execution of Sale Deed. He has pointed out the cross-examination in which the plaintiff (respondent) has specifically admitted that he was doing labour work. In para 3 of his cross-examination, he has specifically stated that he was doing labour work and living on daily wages. He was having two acres agricultural land. Learned Counsel has pointed out cross-examination of plaintiff (respondent) in para 7 and submitted that he was not having money and, therefore, it cannot be stated that the plaintiff (respondent) was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. In support of his submission he has pointed out decisions in the cases of N. P. Thirugnanam (dead) by Lrs. Vs. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao and others, (1995) 5 SCC 115 and Kalawati (dead) through Lrs. and others Vs. Rakesh Kumar and others, (2018) 3 SCC 658 . 7. Heard learned Counsel Shri V. R. Deshpande for the respondent (original plaintiff). He has submitted that the plaintiff (respondent) has proved his case. The witnesses, who were present at the time of execution of agreement have stated before the Court about the execution of Agreement of Sale. Nothing is no record to show that the plaintiff (respondent) was doing the business of money lending. He has submitted that the plaintiff (respondent) has proved his case. The witnesses, who were present at the time of execution of agreement have stated before the Court about the execution of Agreement of Sale. Nothing is no record to show that the plaintiff (respondent) was doing the business of money lending. The contention of the defendant (appellant) is that he was doing money lending business is not proved. Learned Counsel has submitted that the plaintiff was having money to perform his part of contract. He sold cotton and cattle and arranged the money. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Learned Counsel has submitted the First Appellant Court has rightly decreed the suit. Hence, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. There is no dispute about the execution of Agreement of Sale by the defendant (appellant). The Agreement of Sale is at Exh. 23. It is defence of the defendant (appellant) that Agreement of Sale was executed towards security for the loan amount. The defendant (appellant) has stated that he has received Rs.20,000/- only for the treatment of his father. Agreement of Sale was reduced into writing only as a security. This type of defence cannot be accepted because, he has admitted in his cross-examination that the Agreement of Sale was read over to him and thereafter he signed on it. Now, he cannot say that he has blindly singed on the Agreement of Sale (Exh. 23). 9. As to whether, the plaintiff (respondent) was ready and willing to perform his part of contract is to be seen. The evidence and cross-examination of the plaintiff (respondent) clearly show that he was not having money. He has stated in his cross-examination in para 7 that on 19.06.1996, he was not having Rs.20,000/- and, therefore, he was not ready to get the Sale Deed executed. This itself shows that when the plaintiff (respondent) entered into an agreement to get the Sale Deed executed, on that day, the plaintiff (respondent) was not having sufficient money to purchase the suit field. In para 3 of his cross-examination, he has specifically stated that he was a person earning hand to mouth. He was having only two acres agricultural land. He was doing daily wages work. In para 3 of his cross-examination, he has specifically stated that he was a person earning hand to mouth. He was having only two acres agricultural land. He was doing daily wages work. In such a situation, it is a matter of common sense that whether such type of person was having any sufficient money to purchase land for consideration of Rs.80,000/-. The trial Court has rightly recorded its findings. The cross-examination of the plaintiff (respondent) in para 7 clearly shows that he was not having money on 02.04.1997. He has stated that on 01.07.1997, he sold cotton and cattle. This itself shows that on 02.04.1997, he was not having balance money to pay to the defendant (appellant) and get the Sale Deed executed. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff (respondent) failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff (respondent) and defendant (appellant) both are resident of same village. Nothing is on record to show that the plaintiff (respondent) requested the defendant (appellant) to come to the Office of Sub Registrar to execute the Sale Deed on or before 02.04.1997. 10. In the case of N.P. Thirugananam (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: "The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance. Right from the date of the execution till date of the decree he must prove that he is ready and has always been willing to perform his part of the contract. This circumstance is material and relevant and is required to be considered by the court while granting or refusing to grant the relief. If the plaintiff fails to either aver or prove the same, he must fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior and subsequent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances. The amount of consideration which he has to pay to the defendant must of necessity be proved to be available. The court may infer from the facts and circumstances whether the plaintiff was ready and was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract". 11. The amount of consideration which he has to pay to the defendant must of necessity be proved to be available. The court may infer from the facts and circumstances whether the plaintiff was ready and was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract". 11. In the case of Kalawati (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: "Suit was filed by plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell, claiming that advance payment had been given by him towards sale price of land to defendants and that balance consideration was not paid since defendants were obliged to obtain a certain "no-objection certificate" from appropriate authority and execute sale deed. Held, plaintiff did not have necessary funds available with him to pay balance consideration. Further, there was nothing to indicate nature of "no-objection certificate" that vendors were required to obtain and who were authorities from whom "no-objection certificate" was required, nor was there any indication of purpose for which "no-objection certificate" was required. In view thereof, dismissal of suit of plaintiff by trial court, upheld". 12. The cross-examination of the plaintiff (respondent) clearly shows that he was not having money to purchase the suit field on or before 02.04.1997, therefore, the plaintiff (respondent) was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. 13. Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 is reproduced as under: 16. Personal Bars to relief. - Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person - 16 (c) - Who fails to 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 .." In view of Section 16 of Specific Relief Act,1963, the plaintiff (respondent) is not entitled for specific performance of contract. 14. In the present case, the plaintiff (respondent) was not having money on the date of the execution of Sale of Agreement itself or thereafter. His cross-examination shows that his earning was hand to mouth. He was having only two acres agricultural land. He has stated in his cross-examination that he sold cotton and cattle to purchase the suit land. But nothing is produced on record to show that he was having balance amount of consideration as stated by him. His cross-examination shows that his earning was hand to mouth. He was having only two acres agricultural land. He has stated in his cross-examination that he sold cotton and cattle to purchase the suit land. But nothing is produced on record to show that he was having balance amount of consideration as stated by him. No document is produced on record and, therefore, it is clear that plaintiff (respondent) was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Therefore, the plaintiff (respondent) is not entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract. 15. In view of the above cited judgments, the readiness and willingness must be continuous to grant specific performance of contract by the Court. The plaintiff must prove that he was and is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Evidence of the plaintiff (respondent) shows that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract because his cross-examination specifically shows that on the date of execution of agreement itself, he was not having money i.e. Rs.20,000/- to get the Sale Deed executed and further cross-examination shows that he sold cotton and cattle to purchase the agricultural land, but not a single document is filed on record to show that he was having balance consideration on that date. Hence, the plaintiff (respondent) failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. 16. To grant the decree of specific performance, is discretion of the Court. It is not mandatory for the Court to grant specific performance. The Court has to see the evidence and record. The trial Court come to the conclusion that the defendant (appellant) was in need of money because his father was ailing from heart disease. This fact is admitted by the plaintiff (respondent) in his cross-examination. He has stated in his cross-examination that father of defendant (appellant) was having heart disease and, therefore, defendant was in need of money. Thus, it appears that this particular admission support the contention of the defendant (appellant) and, therefore, in such situation the plaintiff (respondent) is not entitled for specific performance of contract. Alternatively, he is entitled for refund of money. The trial Court has rightly partly allowed the suit and directed the defendant (appellant) to refund the earnest money of Rs.60,000/-. 17. Thus, it appears that this particular admission support the contention of the defendant (appellant) and, therefore, in such situation the plaintiff (respondent) is not entitled for specific performance of contract. Alternatively, he is entitled for refund of money. The trial Court has rightly partly allowed the suit and directed the defendant (appellant) to refund the earnest money of Rs.60,000/-. 17. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. The judgment of First Appellate Court is hereby quashed and set aside and judgment of trial Court is restored.