JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 28-3-2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Raipur, in civil suit No.30-A/2016 whereby the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case, as pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff, in brief, are that the respondent/defendants owned land bearing khasra No.142/2 and 142/4 admeasuring 0.105 hectare at Mouza Gondwara, Tahsil & District Raipur. The defendants entered into an agreement for sale on 5-3-2015 for a sale consideration of Rs. 24.00 lacs; out of that an amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs was paid by way of cheque and the remaining amount of Rs. 19.00 lacs was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. According to the plaintiff, to secure the agreement, on different dates he gave different cheques to the defendant and as per the plaintiff, the sale deed was to be executed within six months from 5-3-2015 with a pre condition that before the land was put to sale, the demarcation would be carried out and thereafter, the sale deed would be executed. The plaintiff also pleaded that after receipt of the amount, possession of the land was given to him and he has constructed a boundary wall on that. Despite lapse of six months the defendant did not execute the sale deed, therefore, notices were exchanged and initially, according to the plaintiff, wrong khasra number was shown in the notice, which was subsequently corrected, but despite that the sale deed was not executed, therefore, the suit was filed. The plaintiff stated that he was ready and willing to execute the sale deed, therefore, the decree for specific performance be passed in his favour. 3. The defendants refuted the claim and it was stated that the plaintiff mainly dealing with the lands, as a land broker, therefore, he himself purchased the land. According to the defendant, as per sale agreement dated 5-3-2015 the entire sale consideration should have been paid, but the plaintiff did not pay the same. According to the defendant, the actual sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 45.00 lacs, but at the instance of the plaintiff to save the tax, it was shown to be for Rs. 24.00 lacs. The defendant stated that the sale consideration of Rs. According to the defendant, the actual sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 45.00 lacs, but at the instance of the plaintiff to save the tax, it was shown to be for Rs. 24.00 lacs. The defendant stated that the sale consideration of Rs. 45.00 lacs would be more appropriate to consider inasmuch as cheque of Rs. 1.00 lac each was given to Vimal, Surya Kumar and Sunita, however, the said cheques were dishonoured for want of money. They stated that the plaintiff did not have the requisite money, which is evident from dishonour of cheques for want of funds. The plaintiff, in fact, was not willing to execute the sale deed and the suit was sought to be dismissed. 4. The learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings framed four issues. Though it admitted the fact that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement on 5-3-2015 for purchase of land bearing khasra No.142/2 and 142/4 for Rs. 24.00 lacs and paid Rs. 5.00 lacs, but the plaintiff was not willing to perform his part of contract, therefore, the suit for specific performance was dismissed. Thus, this appeal by the appellant/plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the trial Court has wrongly recorded the finding that time was essence of contract. He would submit that out of Rs. 24.00 lacs of total sale consideration, an amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs was already paid and the agreement (Ex.P/1) would show that the defendant would get the land demarcated in presence of purchaser and if the area is changed then the sale consideration would accordingly be varied. He would further submit that the conduct of the parties would show that time was not essence of contract. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of the parties would show that contrary to the agreement, they stated that the sale deed was to be executed for Rs. 45.00 lacs as per DW-1 Radheshyam Pandey, which was not in accordance with the agreement (Ex.P/1). He would also submit that there is no defence except the fact that they wanted to sale the land on higher price, which was subsequent state of mind contrary to the agreement dated 5-3-2015. He would next submit that the cheque of Rs. 45.00 lacs as per DW-1 Radheshyam Pandey, which was not in accordance with the agreement (Ex.P/1). He would also submit that there is no defence except the fact that they wanted to sale the land on higher price, which was subsequent state of mind contrary to the agreement dated 5-3-2015. He would next submit that the cheque of Rs. 5.00 lacs, which was said to have been dishonoured, was a security amount and since the defendant failed to get the land demarcated, the cheque was dishonoured at the instance of the plaintiff. He would submit that under the circumstances since the considerable time has passed, the plaintiff is ready and willing to purchase the land on current price which is existing as on today so that balance of equity should be maintained. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants, per contra, would submit that the amount of sale consideration was higher than Rs. 24.00 lacs, which would be evident from the conduct of the plaintiff as he gave four cheques, which were to be encashed within a period of six months from 5-3-2015. Since the cheques were dishonoured, it would show that the plaintiff himself was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. He would also submit that no account statement has been placed on record to show that the plaintiff is having sufficient funds in his account to discharge the sale consideration, therefore, no presumption can be drawn in absence of sufficient sale consideration in the hands of purchaser. In the particular facts of this case, the finding of the learned trial Court that the plaintiff himself was not ready and willing to execute the sale deed is well merited, which do not call for any interference of this Court. Learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the record. 8. According to the plaintiff, the agreement for sale was entered in between the parties on 5-3-2015 for a sale consideration of Rs. 24.00 lacs; out of that an amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs was paid and remaining amount of Rs. 19.00 lacs was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of agreement. The agreement is Ex.P/1. The evidence would show that Rs. 5.00 lacs was paid pursuant to the agreement dated 5-3-2015. 24.00 lacs; out of that an amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs was paid and remaining amount of Rs. 19.00 lacs was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of agreement. The agreement is Ex.P/1. The evidence would show that Rs. 5.00 lacs was paid pursuant to the agreement dated 5-3-2015. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that after the agreement the amount was paid, he was put into possession of the subject land and thereafter, he had constructed the plinth and raised a boundary wall thereby he holds the possession. The defendant stated that the plaintiff agreed to purchase the land for Rs. 45.00 lacs though it is contrary to the agreement (Ex.P/1), as the same shows that the sale consideration was Rs. 24.00 lacs. 9. In the evidence, DW-1 Radheshyam Pandey deposed that though the agreement was for Rs. 24.00 lacs, but the actual sale consideration was Rs. 45.00 lacs in order to save the tax and since the defendants were illiterate people they agreed to receive Rs. 21.00 lacs separately and believing the plaintiff, they executed the agreement. 10. The plaintiff in his statement stated that in order to secure the agreement cheque of Rs. 1.00 lacs each was paid to Vimal Kumar, Surya Kumar & Sunita Bhaskar on 15-4-2015, 15-4-2015 & 2-4- 2015 respectively and cheque of Rs. 2.00 lacs was paid to Ramnarayan Mishra on 15-3-2015 in lieu to secure the agreement to the seller. According to the plaintiff since the defendants were reluctant to demarcate the land, as such, he stopped the payment. He admitted in the cross-examination that no written information was given for stop payment of cheque. At one point the plaintiff stated that he was put into possession and has raised a boundary wall, but on the other hand stated that the demarcation would be carried out, these two statements do not match with each other and are contradictory. 11. As against the evidence, the defendants would depose that subsequent cheque, which was given to them as they were in dire need of money, but when was placed for clearance was dishonoured for want of sufficient fund. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff was having sufficient funds in his account on the date for which subsequent cheques were given. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff was having sufficient funds in his account on the date for which subsequent cheques were given. If the cheques were given to secure agreement, the same was also contrary to the agreement of sale as the remaining part of sale was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed, therefore, contradictory and ambiguous facts have come on record on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant stated that though the sale consideration was Rs. 45.00 lacs and Rs. 21.00 lacs was agreed to be paid separately by the purchaser, but it was not paid. With the separate cheques given the preponderance of probability lean more in favour of respondents. 12. We are unable to understand under what circumstances for security of agreement further cheque was given which got dishonoured for want of funds. If according to the plaintiff he was put into possession what further security was required for. Thus, only oral statements have been made about grant of possession, which do not manifest from agreement or any other document. The cheques which were additionally given to defendants raises all doubts and appears certain facts are shelved which creates all doubt on conduct of parties. 13. The Supreme Court in the matter of Shenbagam v K.K. Rathinavel, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 71 has observed that the conduct of the parties in the specific performance of the agreement, the suit would also be relevant factor. It further held that in a suit for specific performance, Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act provides certain bars to the relief of specific performance. These include, inter alia, 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 which has been prevented and waived by the defendant. Further at para 15, the Court observed that ‘readiness’ refers to the financial capacity and ‘willingness’ refers to the conduct of plaintiff wanting the performance. The relevant portion of paras 13, 14 & 15 are quoted below : “13. The present appeal involves a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell the suit property between the appellants and respondent. The relevant portion of paras 13, 14 & 15 are quoted below : “13. The present appeal involves a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell the suit property between the appellants and respondent. The core of the dispute arising from the suit seeking the relief of specific performance under the specific Relief Act is whether the respondent-plaintiff has performed or has always been “ready and willing” to perform his obligations under the contract. 14. “……. In J.P. Builders v. A. Ramadas Rao, a two-judge Bench of this Court observed that Section 16 (c) mandates ‘readiness and willingness’ of the plaintiff and is a condition precedent to obtain the relief of specific performance. The Court held : “25. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 mandates “readyness 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. […..] 27. It is settled law that even in absence of specific plea by the opposite party, it is the mandate of the statute that the plaintiff has to comply with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and when there is a non- compliance with this statutory mandate, the court is not bound to grant specific performance and is left with no other alternative but to dismiss the suit. It is also clear that readiness to perform must be established throughout the relevant points of time. “Readiness and willingness” to perform the part of contract has to be determined/ ascertained from the conduct of the parties.” 15. The Court further observed that ‘readiness’ refers to the financial capacity and ‘willingness’ refers to the conduct of the plaintiff wanting the performance”. 14. “Readiness and willingness” to perform the part of contract has to be determined/ ascertained from the conduct of the parties.” 15. The Court further observed that ‘readiness’ refers to the financial capacity and ‘willingness’ refers to the conduct of the plaintiff wanting the performance”. 14. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, we are of the view that the conduct of the plaintiff/appellant is not beyond doubt as unexplained conduct remained at the fore only leads to show that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract and was not in a capacity to discharge financial liability agreed to be performed by the contract. 15. In view of foregoing, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. 16. In the result, the instant appeal, sans substratum, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). 17. A decree be drawn accordingly.