JUDGMENT : S. G. Pandit, J. This first appeal is filed under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2016 in O.S.No.3/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli (for short, 'Trial Court') by which, the appellants/plaintiffs' suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10.01.2011 is dismissed, holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover Rs.5,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. 2. Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, appeal is taken up for final disposal. 3. The parties to the appeal would be referred to as they stand before the Trial Court. Appellants herein were plaintiffs and respondents herein were defendants before the Trial Court. 4. Brief facts are that, the first defendant is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.2 is the wife of first defendant and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are children of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendants offered the suit schedule properties for sale and the plaintiffs agreed to purchase the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, plaintiffs and defendants entered into sale agreement dated 10.01.2011 in respect of suit schedule properties. Suit schedule properties consists of 3 acres 22 guntas out of 8 acres in Sy.No.12/C2, 2 acres 28 guntas in Sy.No.11/ and 0.25 guntas in Sy.No.10/1, totally 6 acres 35 guntas, situated in Kabbepura Village, Kiragavalu Hobli, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District. The total sale consideration was Rs.37,25,000/- out of which, plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- as advance to the defendants. It is stated that in terms of the agreement, four months time was prescribed for completion of sale transaction from the date of furnishing required documents including 11-E sketch. As the defendants could not furnish the required documents within time, at the request of defendants, time to complete the sale transaction was extended by another six months on 03.05.2011. In the meantime, first defendant was required to furnish all revenue documents i.e., RTC, survey map, tax paid receipts and 11-E sketch for verification of title and to prepare the absolute sale deed. Even after completion of extended period of six months time, defendants failed to come forward to furnish the required documents and to execute the registered sale deed. In the meantime, first defendant was required to furnish all revenue documents i.e., RTC, survey map, tax paid receipts and 11-E sketch for verification of title and to prepare the absolute sale deed. Even after completion of extended period of six months time, defendants failed to come forward to furnish the required documents and to execute the registered sale deed. Hence, plaintiffs got issued legal notice on 19.10.2011 to the defendants calling upon them to execute the registered sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration. Defendants caused untenable reply dated 02.11.2011. Thereafter, defendants caused another notice dated 07.12.2011 calling upon the plaintiffs to pay the balance sale consideration and to get the sale deed registered. Defendants said to have caused one more notice dated 20.01.2012 calling upon the plaintiffs to pay balance sale consideration and to get the absolute sale deed in their favour. Thereafter, plaintiffs got issued one more legal notice dated 05.04.2012 calling upon the defendants to execute registered sale deed by furnishing the required documents in their favour. Thereafter, plaintiffs said to have issued one more legal notice dated 11.07.2012 calling upon the defendants to receive balance sale consideration of Rs.31,65,000/- and to execute absolute sale deed. Defendants on 31.07.2012 issued untenable reply. As the defendants failed to come forward to execute registered sale deed, plaintiffs filed present suit seeking specific performance of agreement dated 10.01.2011 by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.31,65,000/- in respect of the suit schedule properties. 5. On service of suit summons, defendants appeared and filed their written statement stating that in terms of the sale agreement, sale ought to have been completed within four months by paying balance sale consideration. Further, it is stated that plaintiffs failed to come forward to pay the balance sale consideration even during the extended period of six months. Defendants in their written statement further averred that they have entered into agreement with plaintiffs in order to overcome their financial difficulties and so as to settle in their native place. But the plaintiffs after paying small sale advance amount have never turned up to pay the entire sale consideration and to get the registered sale deed executed in their favour. Further, it is stated that defendants submitted application to Revenue Authorities for preparation of 11-E sketch on two different dates i.e., on 20.07.2011 and on 09.01.2012. But the plaintiffs after paying small sale advance amount have never turned up to pay the entire sale consideration and to get the registered sale deed executed in their favour. Further, it is stated that defendants submitted application to Revenue Authorities for preparation of 11-E sketch on two different dates i.e., on 20.07.2011 and on 09.01.2012. It is further stated that even to the notices issued by defendants on 07.12.2011 and on 20.01.2012 calling upon the plaintiffs to pay the balance sale consideration and to get registered sale deed executed, plaintiffs failed to come forward and to pay the balance sale consideration. It is also stated that defendants have taken out newspaper advertisement dated 06.03.2012 requesting the plaintiffs to come forward and get the absolute sale deed executed, failing which, the sale agreement dated 10.01.2011 would be revoked and cancelled. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? 2. Whether the defendants prove that, the plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract as per the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 10.01.2011 in spite of defendants are ready to perform their part of contract.? 3. Whether the defendants prove that, the plaintiff has breach the condition without get the sale deed as per the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 10.01.2011? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for? 5. What order or decree?" 7. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff died on 25.10.2014 and his legal representatives have come on record as plaintiff Nos.1(a) to 1(e). The Power of attorney holder of plaintiffs Sri.Shadaksharappa examined as PW1 and got marked 11 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. Defendant No.1 got himself examined as DW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D4. 8. The Trial Court under impugned judgment, on the material available on record has come to the conclusion that plaintiffs failed to prove their readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract and that there is breach of terms and conditions of contract by the plaintiffs. 9. 8. The Trial Court under impugned judgment, on the material available on record has come to the conclusion that plaintiffs failed to prove their readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract and that there is breach of terms and conditions of contract by the plaintiffs. 9. Learned counsel Sri.Basavarajaiah.N for plaintiffs would submit that plaintiffs and defendants entered into agreement dated 10.01.2011 in respect of the suit schedule properties for a total sale consideration of Rs.37,25,000/- and the plaintiffs had paid a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- as advance to the defendants. It is further submitted that time fixed for completion of sale transaction was initially four months and the same was extended at the request of defendants by another six months. Even during the extended period or thereafter, defendants failed to furnish necessary documents to the plaintiffs for verification of their title. Learned counsel would submit that for sale one of the item of suit schedule properties i.e., Sy.No.12/C2's, 11-E sketch was required and the defendants failed to get the 11-E sketch from the Revenue Authorities. Sy.No.12/C2 consisted 8 acres, of which defendants had agreed to sell 3 acres 22 guntas. Further, learned counsel would submit that during the survey work, it was noticed that there is encroachment to an extent of 18 guntas and that defendants could not get the 11-E sketch even to this date. Since the defendants could not get corrected the revenue records and also could not get the 11-E sketch from the Authorities, defendants themselves have not come forwarded to execute the registered sale deed. It is submitted that plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of contract and to pay the balance sale consideration. In spite of several notices calling upon the defendants to receive balance sale consideration and to execute the sale deed, defendants failed to receive balance sale consideration and to execute the registered sale deed. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that as the defendants have failed to furnish relevant documents, he prays for a direction to the defendants to furnish necessary documents, to receive balance sale consideration and to execute registered sale deed. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that as the defendants have failed to furnish relevant documents, he prays for a direction to the defendants to furnish necessary documents, to receive balance sale consideration and to execute registered sale deed. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal. 10. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Ningegowda for defendants would support the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and would submit that as the plaintiffs failed to pay balance sale consideration and as the plaintiffs have failed to establish their readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract, Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit. Further, learned counsel for defendants would submit that due to non co-operation of plaintiffs, defendants could not get the 11-E sketch from the Revenue Authorities. It is submitted that twice the Revenue Authorities issued notice for survey and on both the occasions, plaintiffs failed to present themselves for survey work and as such the plaintiffs cannot blame the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants would further submit that plaintiffs failed to make payment of balance sale consideration during the initial four months period or during the extended six months period. Plaintiffs have not placed on record any material to establish their financial capacity and availability of fund at the time of issuing legal notice or during the course of the proceedings. Learned counsel would further invite attention of this Court to the legal notice issued by defendants and also would submit that defendants had taken out paper publications calling upon the plaintiffs to come forward and pay balance sale consideration and to get the sale deed executed and even to the said paper publication, plaintiffs have not responded. Therefore, he submits that the Trial Court is right in coming to the conclusion that plaintiffs have failed to perform their part of contract and that plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of contract. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire Trial Court records, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to, "Whether the finding of the Trial Court with regard to readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs to perform their part of contract is proper and correct?" 12. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire Trial Court records, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to, "Whether the finding of the Trial Court with regard to readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs to perform their part of contract is proper and correct?" 12. The answer to the above point would be in the affirmative for the following reasons: (a) In a suit for specific performance, it is for the party who enforces specific performance of contract to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform essential terms of the contract. A person who fails to prove that he has performed or was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract would not be entitled for specific performance of contract. Readiness and willingness to perform a contract would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be a straight jacket formula. It is always for the plaintiffs to plead and prove that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of contract throughout from the date of sale agreement till culmination of suit. Such readiness and willingness shall be proved by cogent and acceptable evidence. Mere averment in the plaint with regard to readiness and willingness would not be sufficient. There must be material to show the readiness and willingness of the party. The Court has a duty even in the absence of defence by other party to examine the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in performing his part of contract in a suit for specific performance. (b). The Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent decision reported in the case of P.Daivasigamani v. S.Sambandan, (2022) 14 SCC 793 while considering section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 explained the meaning of readiness and willingness. Readiness would mean that capacity of plaintiff to perform the contract which would include financial position to pay the purchase price and willingness refers to the intention of plaintiff as a purchaser to perform his part of contract including the conduct of plaintiff/purchaser and attending circumstances. Relevant paragraphs 21 and 22 reads as follows: "21. Readiness and willingness are not one, but two separate elements. Relevant paragraphs 21 and 22 reads as follows: "21. Readiness and willingness are not one, but two separate elements. Readiness means the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract, which would include the financial position to pay the purchase price. Willingness refers to the intention of the plaintiff as a purchaser to perform his part of the contract. Willingness is inferred by scrutinising the conduct of the plaintiff purchaser, including attending circumstances [See para 2 in Ganesh Dassji v. Sita Ram Thapar, (1996) 4 SCC 526 ]. Continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff purchaser from the date the balance sale consideration was payable in terms of the agreement to sell, till the decision of the suit, is a condition precedent for grant of relief of specific performance [See para 5 in N.P. Thirugnanam v. R. Jagan Mohan Rao, (1995) 5 SCC 115 . Also see Ardeshir Mama v. Flora Sassoon, 1928 SCC Online PC 43 : (1927-28) 55 IA 360 : AIR 1928 PC 208 ] . 22. The expression "readiness and willingness" used in Section 16(c) of the said Act, has been interpreted in a catena of decisions by this Court, in the light of facts and circumstances of the cases under consideration for the purpose of granting or refusing to grant the relief of specific performance of a contract. The said expression cannot be interpreted in a straitjacket formula. In a very apt decision of this Court in Syed Dastagir v. T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty [Syed Dastagir v. T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty, (1999) 6 SCC 337 ], a three-Judge Bench of this Court, construing a plea of "readiness and willingness to perform" in view of the requirement of Section 16(c) and its Explanation, observed as under : (SCC p. 341, para 9) "9. So the whole gamut of the issue raised is, how to construe a plea specially with reference to Section 16(c) and what are the obligations which the plaintiff has to comply with in reference to his plea and whether the plea of the plaintiff could not be construed to conform to the requirement of the aforesaid section, or does this section require specific words to be pleaded that he has performed or has always been ready and is willing to perform his part of the contract. In construing a plea in any pleading, courts must keep in mind that a plea is not an expression of art and science but an expression through words to place fact and law of one's case for a relief. Such an expression may be pointed, precise, sometimes vague but still it could be gathered what he wants to convey through only by reading the whole pleading, depending on the person drafting a plea. In India most of the pleas are drafted by counsel hence the aforesaid difference of pleas which inevitably differ from one to the other. Thus, to gather true spirit behind a plea it should be read as a whole. This does not distract one from performing his obligations as required under a statute. But to test whether he has performed his obligations, one has to see the pith and substance of a plea. Where a statute requires any fact to be pleaded then that has to be pleaded may be in any form. The same plea may be stated by different persons through different words; then how could it be constricted to be only in any particular nomenclature or word. Unless a statute specifically requires a plea to be in any particular form, it can be in any form. No specific phraseology or language is required to take such a plea. The language in Section 16(c) does not require any specific phraseology but only that the plaintiff must aver that he has performed or has always been and is willing to perform his part of the contract. So the compliance of "readiness and willingness" has to be in spirit and substance and not in letter and form. So to insist for a mechanical production of the exact words of a statute is to insist for the form rather than the essence. So the absence of form cannot dissolve an essence if already pleaded." 13. In the background of principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decision, the facts of the present appeal requires to be appreciated. 14. There is no dispute with regard to entering into agreement dated 10.01.2011 between the father of the plaintiffs No.1(a-e) and defendant No.1. It is also not in dispute that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.37,25,000/-, the plaintiffs had paid a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- as advance to the original plaintiff. 14. There is no dispute with regard to entering into agreement dated 10.01.2011 between the father of the plaintiffs No.1(a-e) and defendant No.1. It is also not in dispute that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.37,25,000/-, the plaintiffs had paid a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- as advance to the original plaintiff. The suit schedule property totally measures 6 acres 35 guntas consisted in 3 survey numbers. In Sy.No.12/C2, which totally measured 8 acres, defendant No.1 had agreed to sell 3 acres 22 guntas of land. Admittedly, to sell 3 acres 22 guntas out of 8 acres of land, 11-E sketch from the Revenue Authorities was a requirement for registration. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants have not furnished revenue sketch and also that there is dispute with regard to measurement as it has come to the notice that there is encroachment to an extent of 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.12/C2. Therefore, the plaintiffs contend that unless the defendants make out marketable title and clarifies with regard to encroachment, the plaintiffs are justified in not making balance payment. 15. The Power of Attorney holder of plaintiffs one Sri.Shadakshararadhya is examined as P.W.1 who is none other than the son-in-law of original plaintiff. Documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 are marked. No document or material is placed on record, so as to establish the plaintiffs' readiness and willingness, in that, to show the financial capacity of the plaintiffs as on the date of agreement; as on the date of notice; as on the date of filing the suit and till the conclusion of the suit. 16. The agreement is dated 10.01.2011. The agreement required completion of sale transaction within 4 months. But, at the instance of defendants, time for completion of sale transaction was extended by another six months. Though, the defendants failed to furnish the revenue documents within the time of four months or extended time of six months, the plaintiffs never came forward to demand for the documents and for the first time issued notice on 19.10.2011/Ex.P10, calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration. Though, the defendants failed to furnish the revenue documents within the time of four months or extended time of six months, the plaintiffs never came forward to demand for the documents and for the first time issued notice on 19.10.2011/Ex.P10, calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration. The defendants replied on 02.11.2011 stating that, as there is some discrepancy in measurement of the agreement schedule property which was beyond their control, they would agree to sell 6 acres 13 guntas of land and would execute the sale deed in respect of 6 acres 13 guntas by receiving the remaining sale consideration. The plaintiffs instead of coming forward to get the sale deed executed as stated in the reply notice, kept quiet thereafter. The defendants by notice dated 07.12.2011 called upon the plaintiffs to pay the balance sale consideration and to get the sale deed executed. Thereafter, the defendants issued one more notice on 20.01.2012 calling upon the plaintiffs to pay the balance sale consideration and to get the sale deed executed. The plaintiffs instead of making payment of balance sale consideration and getting the sale deed executed from the defendants, got issued one more notice on 05.04.2012, calling upon the defendants to receive balance sale consideration and to get the registered sale deed executed in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs and defendants went on exchanging notices, but the plaintiffs have never shown their financial capacity by producing the material evidence such as Bank Statements or arrangements made to pay balance sale consideration. Mere statement in the legal notice or in the plaint that they were ready and willing to pay balance sale consideration would not be sufficient to establish their readiness and willingness, unless such statement is substantiated by material evidence. 17. P.W.1-General Power of Attorney holder of plaintiffs and son-in-law of original plaintiff in his cross-examination has stated that his father-in-law was having 7 acres of wet land and was carrying on agricultural activities. Further, he states that in 1 acre his father-in-law was getting 40 to 45 quintals of paddy and per quintal he was spending Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. But to substantiate the said income, no material is placed on record. Mere statement without any proof would not assist the case of the plaintiffs. 18. Further, he states that in 1 acre his father-in-law was getting 40 to 45 quintals of paddy and per quintal he was spending Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. But to substantiate the said income, no material is placed on record. Mere statement without any proof would not assist the case of the plaintiffs. 18. The trial Court under judgment and decree in appeal has rightly concluded that P.W.1 is not able to produce documents regarding transaction with Bank of his father-in-law and that the witness did not disclose anything about the source of income of his father-in-law who is the plaintiff. Further, the trial Court is right in observing that the plaintiffs have not produced any document to show that they were ready and willing to register the sale deed while issuing notices as per Ex.P9 and Ex.P10. 19. The trial Court rightly concluded that the plaintiffs have not established their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract and further was right in declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover Rs.5,60,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of agreement i.e., 10.01.2011 till realization. 20. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the view that no ground is made out to interfere with the judgment and decree under appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2016 in O.S.No.3/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli. 21. The order sheet in O.S.No.3/2012 dated 18.07.2016 would indicate deposit of Rs.9,31,093/- by defendants in terms of judgment and decree under R.O.No.0379665 dated 18.07.2016. 22. The plaintiffs are at liberty to withdraw the above stated amount in deposit by making appropriate application before the trial Court.