JUDGMENT : Rajani Dubey, J. 1.The appellant/Defendant has preferred this first appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2019 passed by IX Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Civil Suit No.173-A/2011, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein for specific performance of contract was allowed. 2.Brief facts of the case, as per the plaint averments, are that the defendant is owner and in possession of land admeasuring 980 sq.ft. of Khasra No.156/25 situated at Mouza Juna Bilaspur, P.H. No.22, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Ward No.32, Ramdas Nagar, Tagore Chowk, Tikrapara, on which a house is built on ground floor and first floor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit land’). The defendant agreed to sell the suit land to plaintiff for total sale consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- and request was made by the plaintiff to reduce in writing the agreement, however, the defendant told the plaintiff that the suit land is not recorded in his name, mutation is to be done and after purchasing the suit land the defendant has not got transferred his name. Thereafter, on 22.12.2007, an agreement was executed and earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to defendant by the plaintiff in presence of witnesses and it was agreed to pay balance consideration at the time of execution of sale deed. After one month of agreement, defendant came to the plaintiff and requested him for Rs.3,00,000/- on account of some emergency then the plaintiff on 29.01.2008 paid the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as demanded by the defendant, in respect of which an acknowledgment was given by the defendant in agreement executed on 22.12.2007. Similarly, the defendant on account of exigency obtained Rs.3,00,000/- on 27.03.2008 from plaintiff, acknowledgment of which marked in agreement by the defendant. Thus, out of the total consideration amount, Rs.8,00,000/- was received by the defendant till 27.03.2008. After passing considerable period, when no information was received from the defendant, the plaintiff went to the house of defendant then the defendant again explaining the reason of non-availability of necessary documents assured him to execute sale deed after making necessary documents available. Thus, out of the total consideration amount, Rs.8,00,000/- was received by the defendant till 27.03.2008. After passing considerable period, when no information was received from the defendant, the plaintiff went to the house of defendant then the defendant again explaining the reason of non-availability of necessary documents assured him to execute sale deed after making necessary documents available. It was further pleaded that the defendant kept procrastinating by making one excuse or another and new fact was brought before him that the defendant had taken loan from UCO Bank due to which the suit land is mortgage with bank and the execution of sale deed could be possible only after repayment of loan and No Objection Certificate by the Bank. For this, the defendant again sought 3-4 months’ time and assurance was given to execute the sale deed by the month of January, 2011. It was further pleaded in the plaint that a proposal was put-up before the defendant that if the defendant did not have the fund to repay the bank loan, then the defendant out of the total consideration amount of the suit land, can obtain balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff for repaying the bank loan so that sale deed of the suit land could be executed in favour of the plaintiff but the defendant did not reply to the plaintiff’s proposal. It has been further pleaded in the plaint that various efforts were made for execution of the agreement and when the attempts turned futile, the civil suit for specific performance of contract was filed. 3.In written statement, the defendant denying the plaint averments stated that neither any agreement to sell suit land was executed by defendant with plaintiff nor any amount was obtained by him. It was averred that the plaintiff is proprietor of Gajanand Glass whom the work of glass fitting of his house was entrusted. 3.In written statement, the defendant denying the plaint averments stated that neither any agreement to sell suit land was executed by defendant with plaintiff nor any amount was obtained by him. It was averred that the plaintiff is proprietor of Gajanand Glass whom the work of glass fitting of his house was entrusted. Due to the cordial relation between them, on being asked to execute an agreement for doing the glass work, a stamp of Rs 50/- was purchased by the defendant and given to the plaintiff, thereafter it was told by the plaintiff to put his signature in the blank space below the stamp and whatever matter needs to be typed, he would get it typed in his own way and show it to him and after completion of the work, the plaintiff would return the stamp paper after full payment of the job consideration by the defendant or it would be destroyed. After completing the glass work and payment, defendant requested the plaintiff to return the said signed stamp, then the plaintiff avoided it saying that the blank stamp was lost somewhere and he had not written anything on it. Thus, the plaintiff taking unfair advantage typed a false agreement of sale fraudulently signing on blank stamp. It was further averred that no such agreement was executed nor any earnest money was obtained by the defendant. The plaintiff used to give rough receipt of the articles/material which were purchased by the defendant from his shop for construction of his house. Thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4.The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff has successfully proved his case against defendants. Hence, this first appeal filed by the defendants/appellant. 5.Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the facts of the case and erred in giving the finding that the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract dated 22.12.2007. The defendant specifically denied the execution of agreement and submitted that the plaintiff had executed a work contract of glass work for which the alleged stamp was purchase an the defendant in support thereof produced the bills raised by various hardware stores which were jointly in the name of plaintiff. The defendant specifically denied the execution of agreement and submitted that the plaintiff had executed a work contract of glass work for which the alleged stamp was purchase an the defendant in support thereof produced the bills raised by various hardware stores which were jointly in the name of plaintiff. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court did not consider the depositions of the witnesses in its true perspective and only considered the examination-in-chief of plaintiff’s witnesses and cross-examination of defendant’s witnesses. It has been also submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have drawn adverse inference on to the fact that the alleged receipts of Rs.3,00,000 on the fact of the agreement dated 22.12.2007 was not signed or counter signed in accordance with law so as to prove the receipt of the same. The plaintiff’s witnesses admitted the fact in their cross-examination that the alleged receipt was not signed or counter signed by the defendant or by any of the witnesses to the agreement. The defendant witnesses had in their examination-in-chief had unequivocally stated that the receipts Ex.D-7 onward had been issued from their shop and the said submission stands unrebutted in the cross-examination of defendant witnesses. Learned counsel also submits that even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that the defendant had entered into an agreement dated 22.12.2007, the learned trial Court ought to have appreciated on the plain reading of the agreement dated 22.12.2007 (Ex.P/2), the paper publication dated 17.09.2010 (Ex.P/4), legal notice dated 20.01.2011 (Ex.P/5), objection raised by plaintiff before the Deputy Registrar dated 31.01.2011 (Ex.P/8), that the suit property had not been specifically demarcated and it was only for the first time in the plaint the suit property was demarcated by submitting its surroundings (four side boundary). Learned counsel also submits that it is admitted that the defendant had purchased two properties comprising in survey No. 156/25 admeasuring 980 sq.ft. and 800 sq.ft. each through registered purchase deed (Ex.P/10). The entire area of 1780 sq.ft. comprising in survey No.156/25 is under the possession and ownership of the defendant and on the entire said area of 1780 sq.ft. double story house is constructed which have been rented and thus in absence of specification of the property in the agreement dated 22.12.2007, the site map of the the suit land ought to have rejected. comprising in survey No.156/25 is under the possession and ownership of the defendant and on the entire said area of 1780 sq.ft. double story house is constructed which have been rented and thus in absence of specification of the property in the agreement dated 22.12.2007, the site map of the the suit land ought to have rejected. It has been also submitted that the specific performance of contract is a discretionary remedy which presupposes existence of a valid and enforceable contract and Section 13 of the Indian Contract Act provides that two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense. The respondent/plaintiff in his cross-examination deposed that “the witness himself states that while writing the agreement Manish had got written the four side boundary”. Thus, in absence of surrounding in the agreement and the specific deposition of the respondent/plaintiff, the learned trial Court ought to have drawn inference as to the validity and enforceability of the agreement. Learned counsel further submits that agreement (Ex.P/2) makes it clear that receipt of Rs.6,00,000/- has not been endorsed by the appellant/defendant neither the same matched with signature of the appellant/defendant on other parts of Ex.P/2. So, the learned trial Court ought to have drawn a conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff had not approached the Court with clear hands and that there were material alteration and manipulation in Ex.P/2. It has been submitted that in specific performance case, readiness and willingness of the parties to the agreement is not only to be asserted but also to be proved by cogent evidence to be led by the party who asserts his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. In this case, the respondent/plaintiff has failed to prove readiness for the same. Neither in the legal notice dated 20.01.2011 nor in the objection before the Deputy Registrar, nor in the plaint it has been asserted that the requisite sanction of the loan from the financial institution has been obtained. Further, there is no pleading to the effect that the respondent/plaintiff had the requisite financial capacity to meet his part of the contract and therefore, in absence of proof of readiness, the relief of specific performance could not have been granted. Further, there is no pleading to the effect that the respondent/plaintiff had the requisite financial capacity to meet his part of the contract and therefore, in absence of proof of readiness, the relief of specific performance could not have been granted. Learned counsel also submits that the trial Court did not frame proper issue in this regard while adjudicating the suit, as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6.Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kamal Kumar Vs. Premlata Joshi & Ors. reported in (2019) 3 SCC 704 , Shenbagam and Ors. Vs. KK Rathinavel reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 71, V.S. Ramakrishnan Vs. P.M. Muhammed Ali reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1545, Pydi Ramana @ Ramulu V. Devarasety Manmadha Rao reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1688, Katta Sujatha Reddy & Anr. Vs. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Private Limited and Ors. reported in (2023) 1 SCC 355 and decision of this Court in the matter of Chetan Kumar Chandrakar Vs. Jitendra Idikar & Anr. in F.A. No.38/2021 (Neutral Citation No.2024:CGHC:31082-DB). 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff supporting the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and has rightly passed the decree in favour of respondent/plaintiff and no interference is called for by this Court. It has been argued that non framing of issue regarding willingness and readiness of plaintiff is not fatal if the parties are aware that they have to face in the trial and they lead their evidence accordingly. Mere non-framing of particular issued would not be fatal. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nagubai Ammal & Ors. Vs. B. Shama Rao & Ors reported in 1956 SCC OnLine SC 14, Sughar Singh Vs. Hari Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Ors. reported in (2021) 17 SCC 705, Laxman Tatyaba Kankate & Anr. Vs. Taramati Harischandra Dhatrak reported in (2010) 7 SCC 717 , Syscon Consultants Private Limited Vs. Primella Sanitary Products Private Limited & Anr. reported in (2016) 10 SCC 353 , P. Daivasigamani Vs. S. Sambandan reported in (2022) 14 SCC 793 , Parminder Singh Vs. Gurpreet Singh reported in (2018) 13 SCC 352 , Moumita Poddar Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Anr. Primella Sanitary Products Private Limited & Anr. reported in (2016) 10 SCC 353 , P. Daivasigamani Vs. S. Sambandan reported in (2022) 14 SCC 793 , Parminder Singh Vs. Gurpreet Singh reported in (2018) 13 SCC 352 , Moumita Poddar Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Anr. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 291 , Sayeda Akhtar Vs. Abdul Ahad reported in AIR 2003 SC 2985 , Nedunuri Kameshwaramma Vs. Sampati Subba Rao reported in AIR 1963 SC 884 , Savitri Pandey Vs. Prem Chandra Pandey reported in (2002) 2 SCC 73 and decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Durg Singh Vs. Mahesh Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 2004 Madhya Pradesh 145. 8.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9.It is evident from the record of the learned trial Court that the plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance in pursuance of the agreement dated 22.12.2007 (Ex.P/2). The learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed as many as 02 issued. For ready reference, the issued as framed by the learned trial Court are reproduced herein as under :- Øa0 okn iz'u fu"d"kZ 1& D;k bdjkjukek fnaukd 22&12&07 izfroknh dz0&1 }kjk oknh ds i{k esa oknxzLr Hkwfe izfroknh dzekad&2 ds ikl ca/kd gksus ds rF; dks Nqikrs gq, fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k gS\ izfroknh dz0&1 }kjk okn laifRr dks foyksfir izfroknh dzekad &2 ;wdks cSad ds ikl ca/kd gksus ds rF; dks Nqikrs gq, bdjkjukek fnukad 22&12&2007 izn'kZ ih&2 oknh ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k FkkA 2& D;k oknxzLr Hkwfe dk iathd`r fodz; i= izfroknh dzekad &1 }kjk oknh ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr djk;k tk ldrk gS\ oknh bdjkjukek izn'kZ ih&2 ds vuqlkj 'ks"k izfrQy jkf'k 3]00]000]@&@#i;s vnk dj izfroknh dzekad &1 ls okn laifRr ds laca/k esa vius i{k esa fodz;&ukek fu"ikfnr ,ao iathd`r djkus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 3& lgk;rk ,ao okn&O; \ Okknh ds i{k esa okn fMdzh fd;k x;kA 10.The main objection of learned counsel for the appellant/defendant is that no specific issue with regard to readiness and willingness was framed by the learned trial Court while adjudicating the suit. 11.Looking to the issue No.1, it is apparent that the burden of proof lies on the appellant/defendant & according to the agreement, the respondent/plaintiff had to pay the balance sale consideration within 15 days after financing the property and would get the property registered from defendant and register in the name of plaintiff or in the name suggested by plaintiff. For ready reference, contents of the agreement (Ex.P/2) are reproduced herein as under :- 12. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW/1 and two other witnesses namely Shubh Narayan Gole (PW/2) and Surendra Kumar Sharma (PW/3). Defendant has also examined himself as DW/1 and three other witnesses namely Pawan Kumar Agrawal (DW//2), Raj Kumar Agrawal (PW/3) and Ritesh Juneja (PW/4). 13.Defendant in his written statement denied the factum of execution of agreement (Ex.P/2) and stated that he never signed any such agreement citing the reason that work of glass fitting was entrusted to the plaintiff and in this regard an agreement of work agreed to be executed in which the plaintiff had obtained his signature on blank stamp paper due to cordial relation. The plaintiff’s witness Shubh Narayan Gole (PW/2) has admitted his signature in agreement (Ex.P/2) and Surendra Kumar Sharma (PW/3), Notary, has stated that agreement (Ex.P/2) was notarized before him. 14.It is evident from agreement (Ex.P/2) that certain conditions were written in this agreement, out of which, one condition was that plaintiff would pay the balance amount of sale consideration within 15 days after getting the property financed and would get the property registered from defendant and register in the name of plaintiff or in the name suggested by plaintiff and before execution of registry all the documents like B-1, Khasra, Panch Shala, 22 points form and diversion paper would be made available by defendant (seller) to plaintiff (purchaser) and the date of execution of agreement was 22.12.2007. After signature of both the parties, two entries of Rs.3-3 lakh each were also written/marked in this agreement on ‘C to C’ and ‘D to D’ part, which are of 29.01.2008 and 27.03.2008 respectively, and according to the plaintiff, these signatures are of defendant who received Rs.3-3 lakh on two occasions citing domestic exigency. The learned trial Court has also found that these signatures were of defendant. The learned trial Court has also found that these signatures were of defendant. 15.The main objection of the appellant/defendant is that no specific issue with regard to readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff was framed by the learned trial Court and the plaintiff has failed to prove this fact that on what date he arranged the balance sale consideration. 16.While dealing with the issue of readiness and willingness in performance of contract, Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Kamal Kumar (supra) held in para 7 as under :- “7.It is a settled principle of law that the grant of relief of specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief. The material questions, which are required to be gone into for grant of relief of specific performance, are : 7.1 First, whether there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/purchase of the suit property. 7.2 Second, whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and whether he is still ready and willing to perform his part as mentioned in the contract. 7.3 Third, whether the plaintiff has, in fact, performed his part of the contract and, if so, how and to what extent and in what manner he has performed and whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract; 7.4Fourth, whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff against the defendant in relation to suit property or it will cause any kind of hardship to the defendant and, if so, how and in what manner and the extent if such relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff; Lastly, whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief, namely, refund of earnest money, etc. and, if so, on what grounds. 17.Further, in the matter of Shenbagam (supra), it was held in para 27, 28, 29, 33 and 35 as under :- “27.The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance in favour of the respondent. The trial court only framed the following two issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff [is entitled] for the relief of specific performance? 2. To what other reliefs?" 28.No issue on readiness and willingness was framed by the trial court. The trial court only framed the following two issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff [is entitled] for the relief of specific performance? 2. To what other reliefs?" 28.No issue on readiness and willingness was framed by the trial court. The trial court analysed the notice issued by the appellants and held that the appellants made no demand from the respondent to discharge the mortgage liability. Thus, the appellants' plea that the respondent-plaintiff had to pay the loan and only thereafter, could the appellants execute the sale deed was rejected. The court also accepted the respondent's argument that the advance amount of Rs. 10,000 was paid to discharge the mortgage. Further, the trial court observed that the documents submitted by the respondent indicate that he had sufficient means to purchase the suit property. The judgment of the trial court was upheld by the first appellate court and, in a second appeal, by the High Court. 29. All the three courts, including the High Court, grossly erred in the manner in which they have adjudicated upon this dispute in a suit for specific performance. In the first instance, the trial court failed to frame an issue on whether the respondent- plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his obligations under the contract and instead assessed whether he is entitled to the relief of specific performance. In doing so, the trial court viewed the legal issue from an incorrect lens. The foundation of a suit for specific performance lies in ascertaining whether the plaintiff has come to the court with clean hands and has, through his conduct, demonstrated that he has always been willing to perform the contract. There is a conspicuous absence in judgment of the trial court of any reference to evidence led by the respondent to indicate his willingness to perform the contract. The trial court merely adverted to "document produced on behalf of the plaintiff and concluded that he had sufficient means to purchase the suit property. Apart from this observation, the judgment fails to analyse the terms of the agreement, the obligations of the parties and the conduct of the respondent or the appellant. 30.XXXX 31.XXXX 32.XXXX 33. We shall now advert to the respondent's conduct throughout the sale transaction. Apart from this observation, the judgment fails to analyse the terms of the agreement, the obligations of the parties and the conduct of the respondent or the appellant. 30.XXXX 31.XXXX 32.XXXX 33. We shall now advert to the respondent's conduct throughout the sale transaction. The respondent has failed to provide any documents or communication which would indicate that he called upon the appellants to perform their obligations or discharge the mortgage within the time period stipulated in the contract. Even after the expiry of the six months, the respondent did not reach out to the appellants. It is only in response to the appellants' legal notice that the respondent demanded performance of their obligations. Merely averring that he was waiting with the balance consideration and believed that the appellants would clear the encumbrance is insufficient to prove that the respondent-plaintiff was willing to perform his obligations under the contract. 34.XXXX 35. The 'readiness' of the respondent to perform his obligations refers to whether he was financially capable of paying the balance consideration. Both the trial court and the first appellate court have observed that the respondent was ready to pay the balance consideration as (1) he was paying income tax since 1988 and (ii) his bank passbooks indicate that he had sufficient funds. The payment of income tax by itself does not show that the respondent had sufficient resources to pay for the suit property. Moreover, the bank passbooks submitted in evidence by the respondent were for accounts opened on 11 March 1992 and July 1994, that is, after the expiry of the period written in the contract. The first appellate court despite noting this, has chosen to hold that the respondent was ready and willing to perform the agreement. The respondent however did not lead any evidence to indicate that in the year 1990 he had the money to pay the balance consideration. The first appellate court shifted the burden on the appellants to prove that the respondent-plaintiff was incapable of paying the balance consideration. It is an established principle of law that the plaintiff must prove that he is ready and willing to perform the contract. The burden lies on the plaintiff. The first appellate court shifted the burden on the appellants to prove that the respondent-plaintiff was incapable of paying the balance consideration. It is an established principle of law that the plaintiff must prove that he is ready and willing to perform the contract. The burden lies on the plaintiff. The respondent has not led any evidence that he was ready or willing to perform his obligations under the agreement.” 18.Again in the matter of V.S. Ramakrishnan (supra), it was held in para 8, which reads thus :- “8. Now the findings and the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court refusing to pass a decree for specific performance is concerned it appears that though there was no specific issue framed by the learned Trial Court on readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff, the Trial Court has given the findings on the same and has non- suited the plaintiff by observing that the plaintiff was not having sufficient funds to make the full balance consideration on or before 12.01.2006. Such a finding could not have been given by the learned Trial Court without putting the plaintiff to notice and without framing a specific issue on the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff. There must be a specific issue framed on readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance and before giving any specific finding, the parties must be put to notice. The object and purpose of framing the issue is so that the parties to the suit can lead the specific evidence on the same. On the aforesaid ground the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit and refusing to pass the decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell confirmed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the learned Trial Court to frame the specific issue with respect to the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff. On remand the parties be permitted to lead the evidence on the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract, more particularly, whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the full consideration and whether the plaintiff was having sufficient funds and/or could have managed the balance sale consideration.” 19. On remand the parties be permitted to lead the evidence on the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract, more particularly, whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the full consideration and whether the plaintiff was having sufficient funds and/or could have managed the balance sale consideration.” 19. Very recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pydi Ramana (supra) held in para 14 as under :- 14. There is a distinction between the terms 'readiness' and 'willingness'. 'Readiness' is the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which includes his financial position to pay the sale consideration. 'Willingness' is the conduct of the party. In the instant case, even according to the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, it would emerge that the plaintiff had been able to successfully prove the sale agreement dated 07.06.1993 Ex.A1 on which date Rs. 2,005/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The evidence on record tendered by plaintiff came to be accepted by all the courts and judgments of courts below would also indicate that further amount towards sales consideration in a sum of Rs. 17,000/- was paid by plaintiff to defendant on 23.06.1993 and same-was-endorsed by him. As per the recital in the agreements, the defendant was required to get the suit land surveyed and as such the total consideration was agreed to be settled after such survey. On the one hand, the plaintiff contends that defendant never got surveyed the suit land. On the other hand pleadings and evidence of plaintiff is silent on steps taken by the plaintiff as expected of a reasonable person which has not been taken in the instant case namely the plaintiff has not produced any evidence either oral or documentary to establish that there was any demand made by him for the land being surveyed by defendant. No witnesses have been examined on behalf of the plaintiff to establish that at any point of time there has been demand made by the plaintiff with the defendant by calling upon him to get the suit land surveyed as agreed under the agreement of sale Ex.A1. No witnesses have been examined on behalf of the plaintiff to establish that at any point of time there has been demand made by the plaintiff with the defendant by calling upon him to get the suit land surveyed as agreed under the agreement of sale Ex.A1. It is for the first time after a period of 3 years from the date of agreement Ex.A.1 namely on 30.05.1996 legal notice (Ex.A3) was got issued or in other words plaintiff was silent for a period of 3 years in enforcing of the agreement of sale. It is for this specific reason the trial court while rejecting the prayer for decree of specific performance has recorded a categorical finding to the following effect: 21. The terms of the agreement xxx the period of one year. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 30.05.1996 ??.?.3 expressing his readiness to go ahead with the transaction and calling upon the vendors to execute the sale deed. That means nearly for two years after the expiry of one year period. The plaintiff vendee did nothing to act in furtherance of the agreement. Excepting a bald and vague assertion that he was contacting the vendors but they were dodging nothing more is brought on record to satisfy the court that the plaintiff was at all material times interested in finalizing the deal and showing his readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the agreement. Though the suit was filed within the period of limitation, it is not sufficient. In assessing the question of readiness and willingness of the party to perform his part of the contract. It is highly essential to take into account the long unexplained silence and inaction on the part of the plaintiff. 22. Plaintiff must perform his part of the contract within reasonable time. There was total inaction on the part of the plaintiff for 2 12 years which was not consistent with the terms of agreement. It is highly essential to take into account the long unexplained silence and inaction on the part of the plaintiff. 22. Plaintiff must perform his part of the contract within reasonable time. There was total inaction on the part of the plaintiff for 2 12 years which was not consistent with the terms of agreement. From 6.6.94 to 30.5.96 i.e., for a period of 23 months, plaintiff sat quiet without taking any steps to perform his part of the contract under the agreement though the agreement specified a period of one year, within which he was expected to urge the defendant-vendor to get measurements of land and fix the sale price and to tender the balance amount and call upon the defendants to execute sale deed and deliver possession of the property. As rightly pointed out by the trial court, the respondent-plaintiff has not produced any satisfactory evidence to prove his readiness and willingness. As regards 'willingness' of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract, the conduct of the plaintiff warranting the performance has to be looked into. The following conduct of the plaintiff warrants consideration: a. Plaintiff got issued legal notice nearly after two years after the expiry of one year period as prescribed in the agreement. b. Plaintiff has not brought anything on record to prove that he contacted the Defendant after the expiry of one year period and was interested in finalising the deed. c. There was total inaction of the Plaintiff from 06/06/1994 (expiry of one year period) to 30/05/1996 (Date of issuance of legal notice) d. Suit was filed on 09/06/1997 i.e. after a period of more than one year from the date of issuing of legal notice. Sald delay has not been sufficiently explained by the Plaintiff. The continuous readiness and willingness is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance. The trial Court has rightly held that plaintiff has not sufficiently explained and proved that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. As such the High Court and the First Appellate Court had erred in holding that plaintiff had proved his readiness and willingness. The trial Court has rightly held that plaintiff has not sufficiently explained and proved that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. As such the High Court and the First Appellate Court had erred in holding that plaintiff had proved his readiness and willingness. 20.It is apparent that the agreement to sell was executed on 22.12.2007 and the date of execution of sale deed was 15 days from the date of arrangement of balance sale consideration and before the registry, revenue papers like B-1, Khasra, Panch Shala, 22 point form and diversion paper etc were to be made available but it is clear from the notice of respondent/plaintiff that he sent first notice to the defendant on 25.08.2010 and according to the plaintiff himself, this notice was not received by the defendant, thereafter he published a news article in local news paper through his counsel on 17.09.2010 (Ex.P/4) and then sent a notice dated 20.01.2011 (Ex.P/5), which was also not served to the defendant vide Ex.P/9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid development and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court ought to have framed issue with regard to readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff but the the learned trial Court without framing such issue decided the suit in favour of plaintiff. According to the guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the objection and purpose of framing issue is so that the parties to the suit can lead the specific evidence on the same but the learned trial Court without framing specific issue granted decree of specific performance in favour of plaintiff, which is not sustainable in law. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, in the opinion of this Court, are not according to the provisions of Specific Performance and not according to the facts and circumstances of the case. 21.In view of aforesaid discussions and applying the ratio of the judgments referred herein above in Kamal Kumar (supra), Shenbagam (supra), V.S. Ramakrishnan (supra) and Pydi Ramana (supra), the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 13.02.2019 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court concerned to decide and dispose of the suit in accordance with law and on merits. The impugned judgment and decree dated 13.02.2019 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court concerned to decide and dispose of the suit in accordance with law and on merits. The learned trial Court is directed to frame specific issue on the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his his part of contract and thereafter, the parties may be permitted to lead evidence on readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract and thereafter, the learned trial Court to decide and dispose of the suit on merits and on the basis of the evidence that may be led. The aforesaid exercise be completed by the learned trial Court on remand as early as possible with co-operation of the parties to the suit, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 22.The appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.