JUDGMENT : H.P. Sandesh, J. This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court granting the relief of specific performance and confirming the same by the First Appellate Court. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the defendants are the owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.1 executed registered sale agreement dated 29.06.2017 and agreed to sell the schedule property for total consideration of Rs.2,20,000/- and received part sale consideration of Rs.2,10,000/- and agreed to execute the registered sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- from him. When the defendant No.1 did not come forward to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of specific performance. 4. After service of summons, the defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending that the schedule property is ancestral and joint family properties of defendants and originally the said property belongs to father of defendant No.1 and grand-father of defendant No.2 namely, Basavaraju. The said Basavaraju had two wives and defendant No.1 is the daughter of his first wife Honnamma and schedule property has been left by the said Basavaraju for the maintenance of defendant No.1 and her mother Honnamma. The defendants and one Honnamma are in joint possession and enjoyment of schedule property by obtaining documents in their joint names and in the schedule property, except said Honnamma, the defendants have no personal rights to execute the agreement of sale in favour of any others. It is also contended that defendants have not borrowed any loan from anybody. Hence, execution of sale agreement to discharge the loans and also for education purpose of defendant No.2 does not arise, as the said Honnamma herself has looked after the defendants. The defendants have no right to execute the agreement or sell the schedule property and contend that the suit is not maintainable for the relief of specific performance. 5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues whether there was sale agreement, readiness and willingness on the part of defendant No.1 and whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance. 6. 5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues whether there was sale agreement, readiness and willingness on the part of defendant No.1 and whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance. 6. The plaintiff, in order to prove his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and examined one witness as P.W.2 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P6. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 examined herself as D.W.1 and examined one witness as D.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D14. 7. The Trial Court, having considered the material on record, answered the issues as ‘affirmative’ considering the material on record and comes to the conclusion that there was sale agreement and almost entire sale consideration has been paid and the remaining sale consideration payable is only Rs.10,000/- and the same is payable at the time of registration and having taken note of the sale agreement, granted the relief of specific performance. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court granting the relief of specific performance, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.17/2022 and the First Appellate Court also having re-assessed the material on record and also keeping in view the contentions urged in the appeal, formulated the point whether the sale agreement was executed, whether the Trial Court committed an error in granting the relief of specific performance and answered the said points as ‘negative’ and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that almost 95% of the sale consideration has been paid and the remaining sale consideration payable is only Rs.10,000/-. Even as per Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, averments regarding readiness and willingness, if conduct of the plaintiff discloses that amount has been paid and only meager sale consideration is payable, then there is no need to establish his readiness and willingness and therefore, having relied upon the judgment in S. KASHINATH VS. SMT. PADMINI RAMNATH reported in 2013 (2) KCCR 1102 , held that when the plaintiff has paid 95% of sale consideration and when the defendants took various stands as to transaction and failed to prove the same, then the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance. SMT. PADMINI RAMNATH reported in 2013 (2) KCCR 1102 , held that when the plaintiff has paid 95% of sale consideration and when the defendants took various stands as to transaction and failed to prove the same, then the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance. In the case on hand, almost 95% of the sale consideration has been paid and hence, the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants before this Court is that the suit schedule property is the joint family property and one Smt. Honnamma is having undivided share in the suit schedule property and they are in joint possession of it along with Smt. Honnamma. In respect of the said contention raised by the defendants, the Trial Court has not framed any issues and when specific contention is taken by the plaintiff that the defendants have executed the sale agreement for the purpose of legal necessity, the Trial Court ought to have framed issues and answered the same. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that no notice was issued prior to filing of the suit and when the suit is filed for specific performance, the plaintiff ought to have issued notice and with regard to source of income for having paid the maximum sale consideration of Rs.2,10,000/-, no document is produced before the Court. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that amount is paid by way of cash and there is a restriction under Income Tax Act to pay more than 25% of the sale consideration and contend that that this Court has to frame substantial question of law. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that there was no consent on the part of the defendants and they were not aware of what was the transaction between them. 10. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment in OUSEPH VARGHESE VS. JOSEPH ALEY AND OTHERS reported in (1969) 2 SCC 539 and brought to notice of this Court Paragraph No.9, wherein the Apex Court has discussed with regard to part performance of contract. 11. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment in RAJENDRA PRASAD RAI AND ANOTHER VS. JOSEPH ALEY AND OTHERS reported in (1969) 2 SCC 539 and brought to notice of this Court Paragraph No.9, wherein the Apex Court has discussed with regard to part performance of contract. 11. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment in RAJENDRA PRASAD RAI AND ANOTHER VS. RAJDEVA RAI AND ANOTHER reported in 1973 SCC ONLINE ALL 350 and brought to notice of this Court Paragraph No.9, wherein discussion was made with regard to readiness and willingness and brought to notice of this Court Paragraph No.10, wherein observation is made with regard to Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. 12. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment in RITU SAXENA VS. J.S. GROVER AND ANOTHER reported in (2019) 9 SCC 132 and brought to notice of this Court Paragraph No.15, wherein discussion was made with regard to readiness, willingness and the transaction and also with regard to approval of loan by the bank and contend that these judgments are aptly applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that very execution of document of sale agreement is not in dispute and the same is a registered document and categorically admitted that she went to the Sub-registrar office. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court that both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court taken note of payment of Rs.2,10,000/-, out of Rs.2,20,000/- which was sale consideration and maximum sale consideration was paid and time is not essence of the contract and possession is also delivered in favour of the respondent when the sale agreement was executed. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that durasth was conducted during the subsistence of the agreement and the same was done at the instance of the plaintiff and the same has been discussed by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The counsel also counsel brought to notice of this Court that two suits were filed at the instance of the defendants i.e., through the mother as well as daughter and the same has been discussed by the Trial Court in Paragraph No.18 of the judgment. The counsel also counsel brought to notice of this Court that two suits were filed at the instance of the defendants i.e., through the mother as well as daughter and the same has been discussed by the Trial Court in Paragraph No.18 of the judgment. Learned counsel for the respondent brought to notice of this Court the discussion made by the First Appellate Court in Paragraph No.24 of the judgment with regard to the evidence of the D.W.1 and contend that property of the defendant No.1 falls within the purview of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. It is clear that D.W.1 acquired the subject property in the partition from her father and she has got absolute right. 14. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and also learned counsel for the respondent and also material available on record, there is a sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff having made payment of Rs.2,10,000/- as against Rs.2,20,000/-. It is also important to note that, D.W.1 categorically admitted before the Trial Court that she had been to the office of the Sub-registrar and even photo is also confronted to the witness and the same has been discussed by the Trial Court in Paragraph No.12, while considering the case of the plaintiff and when photo was shown stating that it was registered in the office of the Sub-registrar, the Court comes to the conclusion that the defendant No.1 has taken a false contention that no money was paid and not executed the sale agreement without passing any consideration. 15. It is also important to note that when the document was registered and also admission was elicited from the mouth of D.W.1 that herself not filed the suit and the same was filed through her mother and daughter and even both the Courts have taken note of the fact that she got the property by way of partition from her father. When the said property has become her absolute property, got filed the suit through her mother as well as her the daughter which clearly discloses that after execution of the sale agreement, she has got filed two suits and the same discloses the conduct of the defendant No.1. 16. When the said property has become her absolute property, got filed the suit through her mother as well as her the daughter which clearly discloses that after execution of the sale agreement, she has got filed two suits and the same discloses the conduct of the defendant No.1. 16. It is also important to note that it is the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that no notice was issued prior to filing of the suit. Admittedly, sale agreement was executed which is a registered document and time is not the essence of the contract and major portion of the sale consideration has been paid in terms of the document and the First Appellate Court also having taken note of the judgment of this Court in S. KASHINATH VS. SMT. PADMINI RAMNATH reported in 2013 (2) KCCR 1102 , held that when plaintiff has paid 95% of sale consideration and when defendant No.1 took various stands as to transaction and failed to prove the same, then the plaintiff is entitled to relief of specific performance. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the fact that almost 95% of the sale consideration was paid. When such payment was made, readiness and willingness of party will not play any role. 17. It is further important to note that when Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act comes to rescue of the parties concerned, there must be atleast part performance of the contract in terms of the agreement and here is a case where almost major sale consideration to the extent of 95% in terms of the agreement was paid and several defences were taken by the defendant No.1 and the said conduct of the defendant No.1 was also taken note by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and extracted the answer given by D.W.1 and got filed two suits through mother and daughter, even though property exclusively belongs to her and the very intention of the appellants/defendants is to avoid the sale transaction and the First Appellate Court also discussed very Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner, if she succeeds to the property. 18. In the case on hand, the defendant No.1 has got the property through her father and the same is also admitted. 18. In the case on hand, the defendant No.1 has got the property through her father and the same is also admitted. When such being the case, both the Courts have appreciated the material on record and the judgment which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in OUSEPH VARGHESE’s case in the year 1969, it is settled law also that when suit is filed for the relief of specific performance, the Court has to take note of readiness and willingness. In the case on hand, almost contractual terms have been complied with and sale agreement is also registered and 95% of the sale consideration is paid and plaintiff has nothing to perform in terms of the contract. When such being the case, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the other judgment of Allahabad High Court also, the Apex Court discussed with regard to readiness and willingness is concerned and the document is a registered document and major portion of sale consideration has been paid and remaining is also payable at the time of registration. 19. Apart from that, taking note of the conduct of the defendant No.1, she got filed the suits through mother and daughter and though they are not having any right in respect of the suit schedule property and she is the absolute owner of the property. No doubt, the Apex Court also in the judgment in RITU SAXENA’s case discussed in respect of readiness and willingness in Paragraph No.15 of the judgment, the factual aspects discussed by the First Appellate Court applicable to the facts of the case on hand where the First Appellate Court discussed with regard to the registered sale agreement. In the said judgment, in Paragraph No.15, the Apex Court observed that the sole document relied upon by the appellant to prove her readiness and willingness is the approval of loan on 30.07.2004 by ICICI and no such circumstance is warranted in the case on hand, since major sale consideration to the extent of 95% is paid and he was not in need of money and only 10,000/- was payable at the time of registration and the same was not payable before registration of the document. Hence, these judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Hence, these judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that there must be demand by the plaintiff before filing the suit and the said contention cannot be accepted, in view of the judgments discussed by the First Appellate Court while coming to the conclusion that already 95% of the sale consideration has been paid and remaining sale consideration is payable at the time of registration i.e., only Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the very contention that there must be demand and the same is mandatory cannot be accepted. It is also the contention that there is no compliance of Form Nos.47 and 48 of CPC and Form Nos.47 and 48 of CPC is very clear on the question of readiness and willingness and the said contention cannot be accepted in the case on hand, as the plaintiff has discharged his performance in terms of the contract. Having considered the material on record, invoking of Form Nos.47 and 48 of CPC does not arise as there is nothing on the part of the plaintiff to comply, since already he had made payment and issuance of notice and demand is also not mandatory, when there is no such terms in terms of the contract between the parties. 21. The Apex Court also in the judgment in P. PURUSHOTTAM REDDY AND ANOTHER VS. PRATAP STEELS LTD. reported in (2002) 2 SCC 686 , observed that High Court also noted that in the appellant’s written statement, no plea regarding non-compliance with Forms 47 and 48 had been taken. Therefore, High Court decided that three additional issues had to be framed. But, in the case on hand, even if such plea is taken, there is nothing to decide with regard to readiness and willingness, since almost 95% of sale consideration has already been paid and only Rs.10,000/- was payable at the time of registration. Therefore, High Court decided that three additional issues had to be framed. But, in the case on hand, even if such plea is taken, there is nothing to decide with regard to readiness and willingness, since almost 95% of sale consideration has already been paid and only Rs.10,000/- was payable at the time of registration. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no compliance of Form Nos.47 and 48 of CPC as well as Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, as the same is warranted only when the plaintiff has to comply his part of contract and notice of demand is not mandatory in a suit for specific performance having considered the terms of the contract. 22. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the judgment in NANDAGIRI GODAVARI AND ANOTHER VS. KANUGANTI SUDERSHAN reported in 2011 SCC ONLINE Apex Court 376, when similar issue was raised regarding framing of substantial question of law that plaintiff did not issue notice as contemplated under Form Nos. 47 and 48 of CPC and Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act and suit is not maintainable, it is held that oral demand by the buyer of immovable property, as such, being sufficient compliance with requirements of Form Nos.47 and 48 cannot be totally ruled out and also held that it cannot be said that the suit is liable for dismissal on the ground of non-complying with the Form Nos.47 and 48 and Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. 21. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants and appellants also raised number of defences before the Trial Court and these defences are falsified having considered the material on record. Therefore, no grounds are made out to invoke Section 100 of C.P.C. to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law. Therefore, the second appeal fails. Accordingly, the regular second appeal is dismissed.