JUDGMENT : P.B. Suresh Kumar, J. The defendant in a suit for specific performance is the appellant. The subject matter of the suit is a shop room belonging to the defendant. The plaintiff is the tenant of the defendant occupying the said shop room. The case set out by the plaintiff in the plaint is that on 14.02.2006, the defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule shop room to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.2,80,000/- and received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from him by way of advance sale consideration; that the defendant should have executed sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule shop room in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the agreement executed between the parties in this regard within four months; that the period prescribed for execution of the sale deed was extended twice at the instance of the defendant and that despite the fact that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the obligations under the agreement all throughout, the defendant refused to execute the sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule shop room even within the extended period, taking an untenable stand that the agreement covers only the shop building and the electric fittings attached to it, and it does not take within its fold the land over which the shop building is constructed. It was alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint that the defendant is obliged to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement not only in respect of the shop building, but also in respect of the land over which the shop building is constructed and he is, therefore, entitled to a decree for specific performance of the agreement for sale. Alternatively, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree in the plaint for return of the advance sale consideration with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 2. The defendant contested the suit. In the written statement filed by the defendant, she has not disputed the execution of the agreement for sale, or the receipt of the advance sale consideration. Alternatively, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree in the plaint for return of the advance sale consideration with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 2. The defendant contested the suit. In the written statement filed by the defendant, she has not disputed the execution of the agreement for sale, or the receipt of the advance sale consideration. The contention of the defendant however was that the agreement for sale was only in respect of the shop building and the electric fittings attached to it as she had no right at the relevant time over the land over which the shop building is constructed; that she was prepared all throughout to transfer the shop building to the plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration and that the plaintiff was not willing to get the sale deed in respect of the shop building executed from her taking the stand that the defendant is bound to transfer to the plaintiff, in terms of the agreement, the ownership over the land also and further that he is entitled to adjust against the balance sale consideration a sum of Rs.28,500/- claimed to have been paid by him to the defendant by way of advance at the time when the shop room was let out to the plaintiff. It was pleaded by the defendant in the written statement that she has not received any amount by way of advance from the plaintiff when the shop room was let out to him and that there was no agreement to adjust any amount against the balance sale consideration. In essence, the contention of the defendant was that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the obligations under the agreement to obtain sale deed in respect of the shop building executed by paying the balance sale consideration mentioned in the agreement. 3. The plaintiff gave evidence as PW1 and produced on his side four documents as Exts.A1 to A4 of which, Ext.A1 is the agreement for sale dated 14.02.2006, Ext.A2 is the notice caused to be sent by the plaintiff to the defendant on 17.10.2006, Ext.A3 is the reply notice caused to be sent by the defendant to the plaintiff to Ext.A2 notice and Ext.A4 is the bank account pass book of the plaintiff. The defendant gave evidence as DW1 and produced on her side Ext.B1 Will in terms of which she derived title to the shop building. 4. The court below found that Ext.A1 agreement was not only in respect of the shop building, but also in respect of the land over which the shop building is constructed. The court however found that there was no agreement to adjust any amount against the balance sale consideration payable in terms of the agreement, indicating clearly that the plaintiff should have offered the entire balance sale consideration mentioned in the agreement to the defendant for completing the transaction. Despite the view aforesaid that the plaintiff was not willing to pay the entire balance sale consideration as mentioned in the agreement, the court below decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule shop room after receiving the balance sale consideration mentioned in the agreement. The defendant is aggrieved by the said decision of the court below and hence, this appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on either side. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that at the time when the agreement for sale was executed, the land over which the shop building is constructed belonged to a sister of the defendant and when the defendant was not holding any right over the land over which the building is constructed, the court below went wrong in holding that the agreement for sale was in respect of the land also. Placing reliance on the agreement for sale, the learned counsel for the appellant has also asserted that there was no agreement to transfer the land on which the building is constructed and that the agreement was only for sale of the shop building. The learned counsel however conceded that the defendant has subsequently acquired title to the land, but according to the learned counsel, insofar as there is no agreement between the parties for transfer of the land, the plaintiff cannot seek a decree for specific performance in respect of such land, especially since the price fixed in terms of the agreement is only for the building and not for the land. It was also argued by the learned counsel that the pleadings of the plaintiff in the plaint itself would show that the defendant was willing all along to transfer the shop building to the plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration mentioned in the agreement and the plaintiff was not willing to obtain sale deed by paying the balance sale consideration and the transaction could not be completed since the plaintiff was insisting on a sale deed in respect of the land also for the same consideration as the defendant had acquired title to the land in the meanwhile and since the plaintiff was asserting that he is liable to pay only the balance sale consideration as mentioned in the agreement less Rs.28,500/-. According to the learned counsel, it is therefore a case where the plaintiff was not ready and willing to discharge his obligations under the agreement for sale. 7. Per contra, placing reliance on the endorsements made by the defendant in the agreement for sale, the learned counsel for the plaintiff supported the impugned judgment pointing out that the agreement was not only for sale of the shop building, but also for sale of the land over which the shop building is constructed. The endorsements are to the effect that the defendant needs time to obtain documents in respect of the shop room. The argument was that if the agreement was only in respect of the building, there was no need at all to obtain such documents for the purpose of executing the sale deed in respect of the shop building. It was also contended by the learned counsel alternatively that insofar as the defendant acquired title to the land over which the building is constructed subsequently, she is bound to transfer the land also to the plaintiff in terms of the agreement. The said argument was advanced placing reliance on Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned counsel did not, however, raise any arguments concerning the correctness of the finding rendered by the court below that there was no agreement to adjust any amount against the balance sale consideration. The said argument was advanced placing reliance on Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned counsel did not, however, raise any arguments concerning the correctness of the finding rendered by the court below that there was no agreement to adjust any amount against the balance sale consideration. Further, the learned counsel also argued alternatively that if this Court finds that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for specific performance in respect of the land over which the building is constructed, the impugned decree can be modified limiting the same to the shop building alone. 8. We have examined the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on either side and perused the records. 9. There cannot be any doubt to the proposition that the relief of specific performance is discretionary and to be granted on equitable grounds. The material questions required to be considered for grant of relief of specific performance are (i) whether there exists a valid and concluded agreement for purchase of the suit property, (ii) whether the plaintiff has performed his part of the obligations under the agreement in conformity with the terms of the agreement, (iii) whether the plaintiff has been, and is ready and willing to perform the remaining part of the obligations under the agreement and (iv) whether it is equitable to grant the relief of specific performance sought by the plaintiff. 10. There is no dispute in this case as to the execution of Ext.A1 agreement for sale. The defendant does not also dispute the receipt of advance sale consideration in terms of the agreement for sale. 10. There is no dispute in this case as to the execution of Ext.A1 agreement for sale. The defendant does not also dispute the receipt of advance sale consideration in terms of the agreement for sale. As noted, the contention raised by the defendant is that the agreement for sale was only in respect of the shop building and the electric fittings attached to it; that she was ready and willing all throughout to transfer the shop building to the plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration mentioned in the agreement and that the plaintiff was not willing to get the sale deed in respect of the shop building executed from her, on the ground that the defendant is bound to transfer to the plaintiff the ownership over the land also and that the plaintiff is entitled to adjust against the balance sale consideration a sum of Rs.28,500/- claimed to have been paid by him to the defendant by way of advance at the time when the shop room was let out to him. As noticed, it was specifically pleaded by the defendant in the written statement that she has not received any amount by way of advance from the plaintiff at the time when the shop room was let out to the plaintiff and that there was no agreement to adjust any amount against the balance sale consideration. 11. The first and foremost question to be considered is as to whether Ext.A1 agreement for sale takes within its fold the land over which the shop building which is the subject matter of the suit is constructed. There is no dispute to the fact that the shop which is the subject matter of the suit and the land on which the same is constructed belonged to the father of the defendant and it is in terms of Ext.B1 Will that the defendant obtained title to the shop. A perusal of Ext.B1 Will would indicate that the land on which the said shop building is constructed was not bequeathed to the defendant in terms of the said document by her predecessor, the testator and instead, the land was bequeathed by the testator to one of the siblings of the defendant. In other words, at the time when Ext.A1 agreement for sale was executed, the defendant did not have any right at all over the land. In other words, at the time when Ext.A1 agreement for sale was executed, the defendant did not have any right at all over the land. These facts are not disputed by the plaintiff. According to us, the said circumstances alone are sufficient to hold that the land over which the building is constructed was never the subject matter of the agreement for sale. Be that as it may, the agreement for sale does not contain any schedule as is usual in such documents indicating the extent of the land sought to be conveyed. Instead, the only recital in the agreement for sale as regards the subject matter is as follows : The recital aforesaid would also fortify our conclusion that there was no agreement at all between the parties to transfer the land on which the shop building is constructed. 12. The feeble argument advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in support of the finding of the court below that the agreement takes within its fold not only the shop building but also the land on which the shop building is constructed is that if the agreement was only in respect of the building, there was no need at all to obtain documents in respect of the property as contained in the endorsements made by the defendant in the agreement for sale. As already noted, the said argument was advanced based on the endorsements made by the defendant in Ext.A1 agreement for sale for extension of the period prescribed for execution of the document. The said endorsements read thus : As the defendant had no right over the land at the time when the agreement for sale was executed, merely on account of the endorsements aforesaid, it cannot be said that the agreement was in respect of the land as well. Needless to say, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in this regard are only to be rejected. 13. The rule of English Law that whatever is attached to the soil is part thereof and necessarily belongs to the owner of the land, quicquid inacdificatur solo, solo cedit, is not the law in India [See Parameswaran Nadar Chellapan Nadar v. Parameswaran Pillai Krishnan Nair, 1963 SCC OnLine Ker 256]. In other words, a building can be owned in India without there being any ownership in the land on which the building is constructed. In other words, a building can be owned in India without there being any ownership in the land on which the building is constructed. The plaintiff has also no case that such a building cannot be transferred without the land. If that be so, in the light of the finding aforesaid, the plaintiff is entitled in terms of Ext.A1 agreement only a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell the shop building and the electric fittings attached to it. The question to be considered therefore, is as to whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to obtain sale deed in respect of the shop building without the land by paying to the defendant the balance sale consideration as mentioned in the agreement for sale. In this context, the pleadings of the plaintiff in the plaint assume relevance. As noted, the specific case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that the defendant refused to execute the sale deed in respect of the shop room, taking the untenable stand that the agreement covers only the shop building and the electric fittings attached to it and the agreement does not take within its fold the land over which the shop building is constructed. It was also asserted by the plaintiff in the plaint that he is entitled to get a sale deed in respect of the land also in terms of the agreement. Paragraph 4 of the plaint reads thus: It is thus seen that it is a case where the plaintiff insisted on sale of the property on terms different from the terms contained in the agreement and the willingness expressed by him is not for performing the obligations in terms of the agreement. It is trite that the readiness and willingness to be established by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is the readiness and willingness to perform his part of the obligations in terms of the agreement. The readiness and willingness attempted to be proved by the plaintiff in the case on hand is not the readiness and willingness to perform his part of the obligations under the agreement but readiness and willingness to perform a agreement was different from the terms of the agreement. Such readiness and willingness cannot be accepted as readiness and willingness to perform the obligations under the terms of the contract under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act. Such readiness and willingness cannot be accepted as readiness and willingness to perform the obligations under the terms of the contract under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act. In other words, it is a case where the plaintiff has miserably failed in establishing the readiness and willingness to perform his part of the obligations under the agreement. 14. There is yet another reason for us to come to the conclusion aforesaid. As noted, it is specifically pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint that he has paid a sum of Rs.28,500/- by way of advance to the defendant at the time when the shop room was let out to him and there was an agreement to adjust the same towards the balance sale consideration payable in terms of the agreement. Paragraph 5 of the plaint reads thus : As noted, the contention raised by the defendant in the written statement filed by her in the context of the aforesaid pleading is that she has not received any amount by way of advance from the plaintiff at the time when the building was let out to him or that she has agreed to adjust any amount against the balance sale consideration payable in terms of the agreement. The court below found that the plaintiff has not established the case pleaded by him in paragraph 5 of the plaint. As noted, the learned counsel for the plaintiff did not dispute the correctness of the said finding of the court below. In other words, from the pleading of the plaintiff in paragraph 5 of the plaint alone, it is demonstrated that the plaintiff was not willing to pay the balance sale consideration in terms of the agreement for sale to the defendant to obtain sale deed in respect of the shop room. Needless to say, the finding aforesaid also fortifies our conclusion that the plaintiff has miserably failed in establishing the readiness and willingness to perform his part of the obligations under the agreement. 15. It is revealed from the alternative argument advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff is now willing to purchase the building alone without the land in terms of the agreement for sale. 15. It is revealed from the alternative argument advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff is now willing to purchase the building alone without the land in terms of the agreement for sale. We express our inability to consider the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in this regard as a decree for specific performance could be passed only if the plaintiff establishes that he has been ready and willing to perform his part of the obligations in terms of the agreement and he is not entitled to a decree for specific performance based on the readiness now expressed. 16. There is also no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that insofar as the defendant has acquired title to the land over which the building has been constructed subsequently, she is bound to transfer the land also to the plaintiff in terms of the agreement. As noted, the said argument is advanced based on Section 43 of the Transfer of the Property Act which cannot be pressed into service in the context of an agreement for sale. 17. As the plaintiff has failed to establish that he has been ready and willing to perform the remaining part of the obligations under the agreement, he is not entitled to a decree for specific performance. Needless to say, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 18. Even though the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for specific performance, insofar as the execution of the agreement for sale and the receipt of advance sale consideration are not disputed by the defendant, according to us, the plaintiff is entitled to the alternative decree for return of the advance sale consideration sought in the suit, or otherwise there would be unjust enrichment. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned judgment and decree are modified granting a decree permitting the plaintiff to realise from the defendant the advance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of realization with proportionate costs.