JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant/plaintiff has filed this First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2018 passed by Upper District Judge (FTC), Distt. Korba in Civil Suit No.45A/2013, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of contract regarding sale of land bearing Khasra No.799/3, area 10 decimal (0.040 hectare) situated at village Risda, Patwari Halka No.10, Tahsil & Distt. Korba (CG) (for short ‘suit land’), has been dismissed. (For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status and ranking shown in the suit before the trial Court.) 2. The facts, leading to file instant first appeal, are that, the defendant entered into an agreement for sale of suit land with the plaintiff and agreement to sale was executed between them on 07.10.2005. Sale consideration was fixed as Rs.1 lakh and Rs.50,000/- was given by the plaintiff to the defendant as advance amount. It was agreed between the parties that since suit land was diverted land, therefore, defendant shall obtain necessary permission from the Collector, Korba and one month after getting the permission, sale deed will be executed in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant also received remaining sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- cash on 05.5.2006 from the plaintiff and executed power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that with the consent of both the parties, the defendant mortgaged aforesaid suit land against the loan taken by the plaintiff from SBI Korba. Despite repeated request and notice, the defendant did not execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and he is trying to sell the suit land on higher value to other persons, whereas, the plaintiff is ready to perform his part of contract. Therefore, the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of contract against the defendant. 3. The defendant filed written statement stating inter alia that after three months of the execution of the agreement to sale, as the plaintiff had taken loan from the bank for his LPG refilling station, therefore, on being asked by the plaintiff, he (defendant) mortgaged his suit property in favour of the Bank and also deposited original documents of the suit land. He has further pleaded that neither he has executed alleged power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff, nor remaining sale consideration has been given to him by the plaintiff. Despite repeated request made by the defendant for redemption of suit land, the plaintiff did not redeem the suit land and, therefore, he (defendant) could not get permission from the Collector, Korba. However, the defendant is always ready to perform his part of contract, but, the plaintiff himself has failed to perform his part of contract, rather he himself created complication by depositing original document of the suit land with the Bank against his loan and not getting it back. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. Based on the above facts, the learned trial Court framed issues and after providing opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15.11.2018 dismissed the civil suit holding therein that the plaintiff himself has failed to perform his part of contract as neither he paid the remaining sale consideration nor took back the original document of the suit land which was kept on mortgage against the loan taken by the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief sought for by him. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the plaintiff has preferred this first appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the learned trial Court has committed illegality in holding that, as per the power of attorney, the burden of proving the fact that the plaintiff was required to obtain permission, is on the plaintiff himself, whereas, the defendant himself has stated in his deposition para 10 that permission was to be taken by him. It is further submitted that the defendant has accepted in his deposition that he received the whole amount of sale consideration and handed over the suit land to the plaintiff, despite that, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding therein that the plaintiff has failed to prove the fact that he has complied with his part of contract. He further submitted that the terms of agreement have also been proved by the witnesses namely Kailash Sharma (PW-2) and Vinod Kumar Yadav (PW-3), therefore, the suit ought to have been allowed by the learned trial Court. He further submitted that the terms of agreement have also been proved by the witnesses namely Kailash Sharma (PW-2) and Vinod Kumar Yadav (PW-3), therefore, the suit ought to have been allowed by the learned trial Court. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiff. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant submitted that, although agreement to sale was executed between the parties in respect of the suit land and Rs.50,000/- was received by the defendant from the plaintiff as part of sale consideration, but, at the request of the plaintiff, he (defendant) mortgaged his suit land as security against the loan taken by the plaintiff for establishing gas refilling station and original record of the suit land was also deposited in the bank. Despite repeated request made by the defendant, the plaintiff did not take back the original record of the suit land, hence, the defendant could not get permission from the Collector, Korba to sell the suit land. She further submitted that except Rs.50,000/-, the plaintiff has neither paid any amount to the defendant nor has any power of attorney been executed by the defendant in his favour. The alleged general power of attorney (Ex-P/4) is a forged document and if it is assumed that it was executed by the defendant, then, as per Ex-P/4, after payment of loan amount by the second party, i.e. the plaintiff, he can obtain the original document and after getting permission in accordance with law, he can get executed the sale deed in his favour or in the name of any other person. This fact itself shows that after repayment of the loan, the plaintiff was to take back the original documents of the suit land from the bank and permission was also to be obtained by him to execute the sale deed. But, neither he paid the loan amount to get back the original document of the suit property from the bank nor he took permission from the Collector to execute the sale deed and due to such inaction of the plaintiff, the original documents of the suit land are still in the bank. But, neither he paid the loan amount to get back the original document of the suit property from the bank nor he took permission from the Collector to execute the sale deed and due to such inaction of the plaintiff, the original documents of the suit land are still in the bank. In such situation, there is no perversity or illegality in the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment and decree, as the plaintiff himself has failed to perform his part of contract. Therefore, it is prayed that this appeal is liable to be dismissed. To substantiate her argument, learned Sr. counsel placed reliance in the matters of Biswanath Ghosh (Dead) by Legal representatives and others. vs. Gobinda Ghosh & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 605 and Jagjit Singh (Dead) thro. Legal representatives vs. Amarjit Singh, (2018) 9 SCC 805 . 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 8. Admittedly, it has been proved vide pleading of both the parties as well as the deposition of the plaintiff Banwari Lal Sharma and defendant Sanjay Ghai that, agreement (Ex-P/1) was executed on 07.10.2005 by the defendant to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiff for sale consideration of Rs.1 lakh and as an advance, Rs.50,000/- was paid to the defendant by the plaintiff . 9. As per the terms of the agreement (Ex-P/1), since suit land was diverted land, therefore, necessary permission from the Collector was required, to execute the sale deed and such permission was required to be obtained by the defendant and after obtaining such permission, sale deed was to be executed by the defendant within one month. It is also proven fact from the pleading of both the parties and deposition of the plaintiff and the defendant that, after about three months from the execution of the agreement (Ex-P/1), at the behest of the plaintiff, the defendant had mortgaged suit land as security for the loan taken by the plaintiff from State Bank of India, Korba and also deposited original record of suit land. The plaintiff has also admitted the fact that original records of the suit land is still with the bank. The plaintiff has also admitted the fact that original records of the suit land is still with the bank. As per the defendant, since the original record was deposited in the bank as security against the loan taken by the plaintiff and despite repeated request, the plaintiff did not take back original document of the suit land, therefore, he could not get permission from the Collector. Without original documents of the suit land, it was not possible for the defendant to obtain permission from the Collector to execute sale deed. Therefore, it cannot be held that the defendant was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract, rather, due to inaction on the part of the plaintiff, the defendant could not perform his part of contract. 10. As per the agreement (Ex-P/1) and deposition of the plaintiff and his witnesses, Rs.50,000/- was paid to the defendant as advance against the sale consideration of Rs.1 lakh, on the date of execution of the agreement (Ex-P/1), but the plaintiff has failed to prove that he paid the remaining sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- rather, he made contradictory pleading and statement in this regard. On one hand, he has pleaded in his plaint that he had paid remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- as cash to the defendant on 05.5.2006 and thereafter, the defendant had executed power of attorney (Ex-P/4) in his favour on the same day i.e. on 05.05.2006, whereas in deposition (cross-examination), he has stated that he paid the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- to the defendant through cheque. But he could not prove those alleged cheque and its encashment in favour of the defendant. This fact has been discussed in detail by the earned trial Court in the impugned judgment. Considering the contradictory pleading and statement of the plaintiff with regard to payment of remaining amount, Rs.50,000/-, the learned trial Court has rightly held that payment of remaining amount of sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- has not been proved by the plaintiff. 11. Execution of power of attorney (Ex-P/4) has been denied by the defendant and in support of the fact that, it was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, none of the independent witnesses of Ex-P/4 have been examined by the plaintiff, even the plaintiff has not proved his own signature on Ex-P/4. 11. Execution of power of attorney (Ex-P/4) has been denied by the defendant and in support of the fact that, it was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, none of the independent witnesses of Ex-P/4 have been examined by the plaintiff, even the plaintiff has not proved his own signature on Ex-P/4. Contents of Ex-P/4 with regard to payment of whole sale consideration is also not found proved from the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, rather his pleading and statement in this regard are itself contradictory, therefore, it cannot be held that alleged general power of attorney (Ex-P/4) was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. For the sake of argument, if it is assumed that Ex.P/4 was executed by the defendant, then as per the contents of it, responsibility was taken by the plaintiff that after payment of loan amount, he will obtain original document of suit land from the bank and he will also obtain necessary permission from the Collector to get the sale deed executed in his favour or in favour of any other person. Thus, if it is assumed that Ex-P/4 was executed by defendant, then also, liability was taken by the plaintiff himself to get back the document of suit land after payment of loan amount and he will also obtain permission from the Collector prior to execution of the sale deed, but he did not do so, and as stated, original documents of suit land is still remained with the Bank. Thus, aforesaid facts also show that the plaintiff has not performed his part of contract. 12. It is apt to note here the provision of Section 16(c) Explanation (ii), which contemplates as under:- “16. Personal bars to relief.- Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person- (a) XXX XXX XXX (b) XXX XXX XXX (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. Explanation – For the purposes of clause (c),- (i) XXX XXX XXX (ii) the plaintiff [must prove] performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction.” 13. Explanation – For the purposes of clause (c),- (i) XXX XXX XXX (ii) the plaintiff [must prove] performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction.” 13. Perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that it is incumbent upon the party who wants to enforce specific performance of contract, to prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of contract. Section 16(c) mandates to prove the fact that readiness and willingness is on the part of the plaintiff and it is a condition precedent for obtaining relief of grant of specific performance. The onus in this regard is on the plaintiff. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) has observed in para 4 as under:- “4. It is settled law that a plaintiff who seeks specific performance of contract is required to plead and prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act mandates that the plaintiff should plead and prove his readiness and willingness as a condition precedent for obtaining relief of grant of specific performance. As far back as in 1967, this Court in Gomathinayagam Pillai v. Palaniswami Nadar (1967) 1 SCR 227 held that in a suit for specific performance the plaintiff must plead and prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract right from the date of the contract up to the date of the filling of the suit. This law continues to hold the filed and it has been reiterated in J.P. Builders v. A. Ramadas Rao (2011) 1 SCC 429 and P. Meenakshisundarm v. P. Vijayakuamr (2018) 15 SCC 80 . It is the duty of the plaintiff to plead and then lead evidence to show that the plaintiff from the date he entered into an agreement till the stage of filing of the suit always had the capacity and willingness to perform the contract” 15. It is the duty of the plaintiff to plead and then lead evidence to show that the plaintiff from the date he entered into an agreement till the stage of filing of the suit always had the capacity and willingness to perform the contract” 15. In the instant case, from the pleading and the evidence adduced by the parties, it is found proved that after about three months of the agreement, upon saying by the plaintiff, the defendant had mortgaged his suit land as security against the loan taken by the plaintiff and he also deposited original record in the bank and despite repeated request of the defendant, he did not get back the original record of the suit land, therefore, the defendant could not obtain necessary permission from the concerned Collector to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also failed to prove the fact that he had paid or ready to pay the remaining amount of sale consideration, rather making contradictory statement and pleading in this regard by him, which has been discussed in detail by the learned trial Court in impugned judgment, compels to draw adverse inference against him. Considering the aforesaid facts, it is found that the learned trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. 16. In view of the above discussion, it is found that the learned trial Court has not committed any error of law in dismissing the civil suit filed by the plaintiff. 17. In the result, the appeal sans merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). 18. A decree be drawn accordingly. 19. The appellant shall bear costs of the respondent.