JUDGMENT : Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This is Plaintiff's First Appeal preferred under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') questioning the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2019 passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, C.G. in Civil Suit No.128-A/2015, whereby the suit for specific performance of contract has been allowed partly. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 04.12.2013, the defendants entered into an agreement (Ex.P-1) with the plaintiff for sale and purchase of their land bearing Khasra No.747/2 and 1447/1 area 0.065 and 0.0154 hectares situated at PH No.29 (19/29) R.I. Circle Bilaspur (for short, 'the suit land'). It is pleaded that under the said agreement, out of total sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- has been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants as earnest money and the defendants agreed to get prepared documents for execution and registration of sale-deed in plaintiff's favour within a period of five months. It was further pleaded that as per agreement dated 04.12.2013, the defendants/respondents shall handover the vacant possession of the land after getting demarcation done, however, the defendants failed to get the relevant documents prepared within a stipulated period of five months and have been avoiding execution of sale-deed on one pretext or other, which has prompted the plaintiff to send a legal notice on 13.03.2015 to the defendants calling upon them to execute and register the sale-deed in his favour within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of notice. In reply to notice, the defendants sent a notice dated 18.03.2015 refusing to comply with the demand made by the plaintiff and accordingly cancelled the agreement executed between them, the information of which was conveyed to the plaintiff by way of publication dated 19.03.2015. The plaintiff has, therefore, been constrained to file the suit in the instant nature praying for execution to register the sale-deed in respect of land in question and, in alternative, prayed for a direction to the defendants to register the sale-deed in his favour after receiving the balance sale consideration from him as agreed between the parties under the agreement. 3. The defendants filed their written statement denying the case of the plaintiff. 3. The defendants filed their written statement denying the case of the plaintiff. It has been specifically pleaded that all the necessary revenue documents have been made available to the plaintiff which were got verified by the plaintiff through Patwari concerned. It has also been put forth that the land in question was also shown to the plaintiff and after satisfying himself, the plaintiff entered into agreement. It has also been pleaded that the defendants were always ready and willing to execute the sale-deed as they were in dire need of the money for the marriage of one of family members and for this reason, they also got prepared all the documents within time so that sale-deed can be executed timely, but it was the plaintiff who failed to get the sale-deed registered in his favour within the agreed period and for this reason, the defendants cancelled the agreement. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. In order to establish the claim, the plaintiff has examined himself as well as two of his witnesses namely Bharat Singh and Parmeshwar Sahu, while defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 have examined themselves in order to counter the claim of the plaintiff. 5. Learned trial Court based on the pleadings and evidence of the respective parties has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to grant of decree of specific performance of contract against the defendants, however, entitled to receive the advance amount from the defendants jointly and severally. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court is perverse and not sustainable in law. The trial Court failed to see that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contractual obligation but the defendants miserably failed to perform their part of contract despite several efforts made by the plaintiff for execution of the sale deed in his favour. Despite there being oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff in support of his contention, the trial Court was not justified in not granting decree of specific performance of contract in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside. 7. Despite there being oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff in support of his contention, the trial Court was not justified in not granting decree of specific performance of contract in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, while supporting the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, contended that the trial Court having considered all the relevant aspects of the matter, the nature and quality of evidence adduced by the plaintiff, rightly arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to get the sale-deed registered in his favour within the prescribed period and the defendants were always ready and willing to execute the sale-deed and they also got prepared all the documents within time so that sale-deed could be executed timely. According to him, the burden was heavily upon the plaintiff to establish this fact as per the provisions prescribed under clause (c) of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for brevity, the Act of 1963'), however, he completely failed to prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his contractual obligation. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the evidence available on record. 9. A suit for specific performance of contract was made by the plaintiff on 07.10.2015 based upon agreement to sell dated 04.12.2013. The alleged agreement was executed with regard to sale of the property in question described in plaint para 1 for a sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- vide Ex.P-1, out of which an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid as earnest money. In order to obtain a decree for specific performance of contract, the plaintiff is required to establish the fact that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as provided under clause (c) of Section 16 of the Act, 1963, which reads as under:- “16. In order to obtain a decree for specific performance of contract, the plaintiff is required to establish the fact that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as provided under clause (c) of Section 16 of the Act, 1963, which reads as under:- “16. Personal bars to relief.--- Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person--- (a) xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx (b) xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx (c) 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 the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. Explanation.--- For the purposes of clause (c),---- (i) where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by court; (ii) the plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction.” 10. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in order to obtain a decree for specific performance of contract, the plaintiff is not only required to plead his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, but has to establish the fact by way of cogent and reliable evidence that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Section 16 (c) of the Act of 1963 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, thus, a sine qua non for obtaining such a decree. The plaintiff is, therefore, required to establish the said fact by adducing cogent and reliable evidence as the burden of proof is heavily upon the plaintiff in order to obtain such a discretionary relief. 11. It is, thus, a sine qua non for obtaining such a decree. The plaintiff is, therefore, required to establish the said fact by adducing cogent and reliable evidence as the burden of proof is heavily upon the plaintiff in order to obtain such a discretionary relief. 11. For proving the said fact, it has been pleaded by the plaintiff in his plaint as also in his evidence that an agreement was executed between them on 04.12.2013 for sale of suit land for a consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- and as against the agreed amount, a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- has been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants as earnest money before the witness. Thereafter, in para 2, it has been pleaded that before the sale of suit land, the defendants, as per alleged agreement, should get the suit land demarcated and determined by boundaries and only after that vacant possession of the suit land be handed over to the plaintiff, and for this purpose all the necessary documents should be submitted by the defendants before the concerned Revenue Department and then only the registry of the suit land would be executed in his favour, but the defendants failed to get the relevant documents prepared within a stipulated period of five months and have been avoiding execution of sale-deed on one pretext or other, which has compelled him to send a legal notice on 13.03.2015 to the defendants calling upon them to execute and register the sale- deed in his favour within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of notice. In reply to notice, the defendants sent a notice dated 18.03.2015 refusing to comply with the demand made by the plaintiff and accordingly cancelled the agreement executed between them, the information of which was conveyed to the plaintiff by way of publication dated 19.03.2015. In para 8 of his evidence, it has been stated by plaintiff that in response to the publication made by the defendants, he has also published a public notice through his Advocate that the defendants should register the suit land as per the terms of agreements and for this, the plaintiff also mentioned in the public notice that the defendants would remain present in the Registry Office, Bilaspur on 23.03.2015 for executing the sale-deed in his favour and he would pay the remaining amount, as per the said agreement arrived at between them on 04.12.2013. He was subjected to cross- examination and in cross-examination, he admitted that an agreement was executed between them on 04.12.2013 and prior to that he visited the suit land and after complete satisfaction, he paid the advance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on 04.12.2013 itself. It is also stated by him that at the time of notarization, sister (respondent no.2) and mother (respondent No.3) of respondent No.1 Harish Yadav were not present. Similar is the statements of PW-2 Bharat Singh and PW-3 Parmeshwar Sahu. 12. DW-1 Harish Yadav admitted in his evidence that he is the owner and in possession of the suit land. He has further stated that he did not receive any amount from the plaintiff and in fact he has received a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from one Ahsan-ul-haq in form of debt and in order to repay the same, he had sold his land bearing Khasra No.375/1, 375/2 area 0.35 ½ to Ahsan-ul-haq. However, the same fact has not been mentioned in his written statement as admitted by him. He has further stated in para 3 that plaintiff did not get the suit land registered within the prescribed period of five months. Had the plaintiff got it registered within five months, then it was not necessary for him to sell the above land. 13. When we examine above evidence, it is clear that agreement to sell the suit land was executed between the parties on 04.12.2013 and the plaintiff, out of the total sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-, has also paid Rs.6,00,000/- to the defendants as earnest money. It is also not disputed that as per agreement (Ex.P-1), registry of the suit land was to be done within five months from the date of agreement. 14. Now, in order to ascertain the fact as to whether the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in strict compliance of clause (c) of Section 16 of the Act of 1963, it is necessary to examine the conduct of the plaintiff. However, perusal of the aforesaid averments coupled with the evidence itself would demonstrate the facts that plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, perusal of the aforesaid averments coupled with the evidence itself would demonstrate the facts that plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The alleged agreement to sell was executed on 04.12.2013 and legal notice was sent by the plaintiff to the defendants on 13.03.2015 i.e. after passing of more than one year and 3 months of alleged agreement between them. Nowhere it is pleaded in the plaint or in his statement by the plaintiff that he has approached the respondents for executing the registered sale-deed so that this Court could believe that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract rather it was pleaded by him that agreement was done between them and required documents were not supplied by the defendants. It appears that from the date of agreement till the date of legal notice, he remained completely slumber without making any effort. On the other hand, it was pleaded by the plaintiff that he sent a legal notice to the defendants on 13.03.2015 which would reveal that in order to fill up such a long gap, the plaintiff sent the alleged legal notice to them, which led to irresistible conclusion that he was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract 15. At this juncture, the principles laid down in the matter of Lourdu Mari David and others v. Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy and others reported in (1996) 5 SCC 589 are to be noted where the Supreme Court has observed that a person who has come to court with a false plea is not entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance. Besides, by virtue of clause (c) of Section 16 of the Act, 1963, the plaintiff was not only required to put forth his plea regarding his readiness and willingness, but has to prove the same as well in its strict sense by way of producing cogent and reliable evidence. However, he failed completely to establish the same. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering conduct of the plaintiff, as observed herein above, vis-a-vis, the aforesaid judgment, it is difficult to hold that the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. As such, the finding as recorded by the trial Court in this regard is hereby affirmed. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering conduct of the plaintiff, as observed herein above, vis-a-vis, the aforesaid judgment, it is difficult to hold that the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. As such, the finding as recorded by the trial Court in this regard is hereby affirmed. However, as regards grant of relief of refund of earnest money of Rs.6,00,000/-, as recorded by the trial Court, it deserves to be and is upheld. 17. Consequently, the instant appeal being sans merits is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. 18. A decree be drawn up accordingly.