JUDGMENT : P.SREE SUDHA, J. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 24.12.2014 in O.S.No.4 of 2003 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 2. The suit vide O.S.No.4 of 2003 was filed by the appellant/plaintiff against respondents/defendants for Specific Performance of Agreement of sale and for Perpetual Injunction. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, plaintiff in the suit preferred the present appeal. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as “plaintiff” and “defendants” as arrayed in the trial Court. 5. P.W.1 was examined on behalf of plaintiff and D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of defendants. Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of plaintiff and no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defendants. 6. The brief facts of the case are that defendant Nos.1 to 4 and father of defendant No.4 by name M.A.Sattar were the owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac.5.00 in Sy.Nos.572, 573 and 74 of Ghatkesar Village and Mandal, R.R District bounded on North: 100’ Wide road, South: 40’ Wide road, East: Nala and West: Existing Huda Layout (hereinafter referred as ‘suit schedule property’). Plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale dated 25.04.1996 with defendant Nos.1 to 3 and father of defendant No.4 with consideration of Rs.3.9 lakhs per acre totaling to Rs.19.50 lakhs. On the date of agreement of sale, plaintiff paid Rs.5 lakhs and agreed to pay the balance amount in three installments. The neighbor of the suit schedule property, Mr.G.Mohan instituted a suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.296 of 1996 against defendant No.1 and plaintiff. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and father of defendant No.4 also instituted a suit for declaration and injunction in O.S.No.551 of 1996. The litigation went up to September, 1999. Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying balance sale consideration of Rs.14.6 lakhs. During the pendency of litigation, defendants have been postponing the registration by assuring the plaintiff to wait for verdict of the litigation, and the time for performing the contract was mutually extended from time to time. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and M.A.Sattar had been dodging the matter under one pretext or the other, even after the litigation is completed. During the pendency of litigation, defendants have been postponing the registration by assuring the plaintiff to wait for verdict of the litigation, and the time for performing the contract was mutually extended from time to time. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and M.A.Sattar had been dodging the matter under one pretext or the other, even after the litigation is completed. In the meanwhile, M.A.Sattar, who was vendor No.4 in the agreement died and inspite of his best efforts, plaintiff could not find his legal representatives. 7. Plaintiff filed copy of the plaint and written statement in O.S.No.296 of 1996 and also filed copy of the plaint in O.S.No.551 of 1996. Common judgment was passed in O.S.Nos.296 and 551 of 1996 on 21.09.1999. Injunction was granted in favour of plaintiff and suit for declaration was dismissed and the said judgment was not challenged and it attained finality. As there was road widening from Hyderabad to Warangal, the suit schedule property was acquired by Government for road widening. In September, 2002, many people contacted plaintiff and expressed their intention to purchase the suit schedule property from defendants, as such plaintiff gave paper publication on 24.09.2002 and also issued legal notice dated 01.10.2002. In a reply dated 13.10.2002, defendants refused to perform their part of contract. Plaintiff left with no other option and thus he approached the Court and filed suit for specific performance of contract. He further stated that from the date of refusal i.e., from 13.10.2002, he filed the suit within limitation and thus requested the Court to direct the defendants to register sale deed and he sought for alternative relief of refund of the amount with interest. 8. In the written statement filed by defendants, they denied all the allegations and stated that suit for specific performance is barred by limitation and plaintiff failed to perform the duties within stipulated time as per terms and conditions of agreement of sale. Plaintiff could not pay the balance sale consideration within three installments as such the amount given by him is forfeited. Pendency of the other suits are no way connected with the present suit and its cause of action. Plaintiff is estopped from claiming the suit property as per law and the facts of the case and he filed the details of the case only to mislead the Court and thus requested the Court to dismiss the suit. 9. Pendency of the other suits are no way connected with the present suit and its cause of action. Plaintiff is estopped from claiming the suit property as per law and the facts of the case and he filed the details of the case only to mislead the Court and thus requested the Court to dismiss the suit. 9. P.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted that total sale consideration is Rs.19.5 lakhs. Plaintiff and defendants orally entered into agreement on 14.04.1996 and paid some consideration of Rs.40,000/- or Rs.50,000/- and obtained receipt and the balance has to be paid in three equal installments on 14.07.1996, 14.10.1996 and 14.01.1997. He has to pay Rs.4,88,000/- and odd for each installment, but he did not pay the same and he has not even issued notice to defendants informing them that he is ready with the installment amount. He has not filed any proof regarding his financial capacity to pay balance of sale consideration by 14.01.1997. He is not an income tax assesse. He was having bank account by the date of Ex.A1, but he did not file the same. As per the agreement, the balance has to be paid in nine months from 14.04.1996. In page No.3 of the agreement, it was mentioned that if the balance of sale consideration is not paid within stipulated time, he has to pay penal interest of 2%. Mohan filed suit for injunction against defendant Nos.1 to 4 and defendant No.1 filed written statement in the said suit and the suit was decreed on 21.09.1999. He is not a party in O.S.No.551 of 1996. Ex.A2 does not disclose any survey number in the schedule. The schedule property disclosed the southern boundary as the plaintiff’s land in Sy.No.572 part, 573 part and 574 part. He has not issued any notices to defendants from September 1999 to October 2022 informing that he was ready to perform his part of contract. He has not issued any notice stating that in view of pendency of O.S.Nos.296 and 551 of 1996, he could not pay the balance sale consideration as per the agreement. It was suggested that he has no financial capacity to pay the balance of sale consideration, but he denied it. 10. Defendant Nos.1 and 4 were not cross examined. Defendant No.4 stated that his father died on 23.10.2001 leaving behind him, his mother and his sisters as legal heirs. It was suggested that he has no financial capacity to pay the balance of sale consideration, but he denied it. 10. Defendant Nos.1 and 4 were not cross examined. Defendant No.4 stated that his father died on 23.10.2001 leaving behind him, his mother and his sisters as legal heirs. They obtained Family Members Certificate from the Office of Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal, on 12.01.2011 vide Proc.No.C/Spl./2011 and filed it as Ex.B1. 11. Perusal of the record shows that plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and father of defendant No.4 executed agreement of sale on 25.04.1996. In the agreement it was stated that vendors who are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property in Sy.Nos.572 part, 573 part and 574 part admeasuring Ac.5.00 guntas, purchased the same vide Doc.No.3591/93, at Uppal, S.R.O. It was agreed for an amount of Rs.19.5 lakhs and on the same day, plaintiff paid Rs.5 lakhs and the oral agreement was entered on 14.04.1996 and the period of agreement is nine months from 14.04.1996 and the balance of sale consideration has to be paid in nine months from the date of oral agreement i.e., from 14.04.1996 in three equal installments i.e., 14.07.1996, 14.10.1996 and 14.01.1997 is final. It was also stated that they failed to execute registered sale deed within stipulated time and thus he filed suit for specific performance and also for damages. It is further stated that if the vendors fails to execute the sale deed within stipulated time, they shall pay 2% interest on remaining balance of sale consideration. 12. Learned counsel for appellant mainly contended that in view of the pendency of the suits, appellant could not pay the balance of sale consideration and he is ready to pay the said amount as such he gave legal notice on 01.10.2002 expressing his readiness and willingness to pay balance of sale consideration and requested the respondents to register sale deeds in three days. Respondents gave reply on 13.10.2002 and stated that agreement of sale is not valid as it was not enforced. O.S.Nos.551 and 291 of 1996 are no way connected with the present case. In the agreement, it was specifically mentioned that entire amount has to be paid in three installments, as such the agreement of sale is barred. Respondents gave reply on 13.10.2002 and stated that agreement of sale is not valid as it was not enforced. O.S.Nos.551 and 291 of 1996 are no way connected with the present case. In the agreement, it was specifically mentioned that entire amount has to be paid in three installments, as such the agreement of sale is barred. He kept quiet for all six years and the agreement of sale automatically cancelled and the amount is forfeited, then plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance. 13. A perusal of agreement clearly shows that within the stipulated time, balance of sale consideration has to be paid in three installments on or before 14.01.1997 and the said date is final. The vendors failed to execute register sale deed and thus he filed suit for specific performance and for damages. The time limit was specifically mentioned. In clause (1) it was mentioned that if the purchaser fails to pay balance of sale consideration within stipulated time, he has to pay the interest at 2% for the balance amount. It cannot be said that he has to pay the amount at any point of time according to his convenience. Agreement was executed on 25.04.1996 and he gave notice on 01.10.2002 regarding his readiness and willingness to pay the amount i.e., after 7 years. 14. The counsel emphasized that in view of the pendency of the suits before the Court, he could not pay the amount. He argued that the land acquired by the Government is passage for the suit schedule property as such he was contesting the suits and because of the said reason he could not pay the balance amount. He has not stated the said fact either in the plaint or in the legal notice. It was opposed by respondents that regarding penal interest, he has not stated anything either in the plaint or in the legal notice or in the evidence and it was taken up for the first time in the appeal at a belated point of time according to his convenience. Thus, the argument of the appellant counsel that in view of the payment of penal interest he can pay the balance amount at any point of time cannot be accepted. 15. Thus, the argument of the appellant counsel that in view of the payment of penal interest he can pay the balance amount at any point of time cannot be accepted. 15. Admittedly, within the time period he could not pay the balance of sale consideration as per the terms of agreement of sale and thus he is not entitled for specific relief as claimed by him. Learned counsel further stated that suit filed by him is within the limitation and he can file the suit either within three years from the date of agreement of sale or from the date when respondents refused in reply to the notice. Therefore, filed the suit and this it is within the limitation. 16. Both the counsel relied upon several citations on the above aspects. In a citation filed by respondents reported in J.P. Builders and another Vs A.Ramadas Rao and another, [ (2011) 1 SCC 429 ], it was held as follows: 21. Among the three clauses, we are more concerned about clause (c). “Readiness and willingness” is enshrined in clause (c) which was not present in the old Act of 1877. However, it was later inserted with the recommendations of the 9th Law Commission’s Report. This clause provides that the person seeking specific performance must prove that he has performed or has been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him. 22. The words “ready” and “willing” imply that the person was prepared to carry out the terms of the contract. The distinction between “readiness” and “willingness” is that the former refers to financial capacity and the latter to the conduct of the plaintiff wanting performance. Generally, readiness is backed by willingness. 17. Learned counsel for respondents further stated that it is for the plaintiff to prove that he is always ready and willing to perform the contract and he has to prove continuous readiness from the date of agreement till the date of hearing of the suit. It was specifically mentioned in Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act. He also relied upon judgments in Jugraj Singh and another Vs Labh Singh, [ AIR 1995 SC 945 ] N.P.Thirugnanam (died) by LRs Vs Dr.R.Jagan Mohan Rao and Others, [ AIR 1996 SC 116 ] for the said propositions. 18. It was specifically mentioned in Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act. He also relied upon judgments in Jugraj Singh and another Vs Labh Singh, [ AIR 1995 SC 945 ] N.P.Thirugnanam (died) by LRs Vs Dr.R.Jagan Mohan Rao and Others, [ AIR 1996 SC 116 ] for the said propositions. 18. In a citation reported in Smt.Chand Rani (dead) by LRs Vs Kamal Rani (dead) by LRs, [ AIR 1993 SC 1742 ], it was stated that contract has to be performed within reasonable time in view of the conditions of the contract i.e., from the express terms of the contract, from the nature of the property and from the surrounding circumstances, for example the object of making the contract. 19. Learned counsel for appellant also relied upon certain citations to emphasize that there is a delay in filing the suit for specific performance which considered in his favour. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.Daivasigamani Vs.S.Sambandan,, [AIR 2022 SCC 5009] has laid down the following parameters for grant of relief of specific performance: Whether there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/purchase of the suit property. 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. 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. 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. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief, namely, refund of earnest money etc.and, if so, on what grounds. It is also laid down in the same Judgment that “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. It is also laid down in the same Judgment that “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 scrutinizing the conduct of the plaintiff/purchaser, including attending circumstances. 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.” 20. Now it is for the Court to consider the arguments of both sides. In view of the citations referred by both the parties, there is no dispute regarding the agreement of sale executed way back in the year 1996. It was also mentioned in the agreement of sale that balance is to be paid within the period of nine months. On the date of agreement, plaintiff filed Rs.5 lakhs and agreed to pay balance of Rs.4 lakhs within nine months in three installments but failed to do so. He mainly contended that even he failed to pay balance of sale considerations, he is at liberty to pay the same with interest at 2% on the balance amount, but he has not raised the issue either in the legal notice or in the plaint or in his evidence at any point of time. The said aspect was raised during the pendency of the appeal for the first time. His another contention is that in view of the pendency of O.S.Nos.296 and 551 of 1996, he could not pay the balance amount. The trial Court clearly observed that in the judgment, the plaintiff came to know about the suit in July 1997 and he has to pay the balance amount by 14.01.1997 prior to the filing of the said suits, as such the argument regarding pendency of other suits cannot be accepted. Moreover, it was clearly stated that the suits are not concerned with the present case. Therefore, the pendency of other suits cannot be the reason for non-payment of balance of sale consideration by plaintiff and it is in clear in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale. Moreover, it was clearly stated that the suits are not concerned with the present case. Therefore, the pendency of other suits cannot be the reason for non-payment of balance of sale consideration by plaintiff and it is in clear in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale. He has not issued any notices to defendants that he could not pay the balance of sale consideration in view of the pendency of the suits and he would pay after the disposal of the suits. For the first time in his notice given in the year 2002, he expressed his readiness and willingness and this clearly shows that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Moreover, he could not file the suit within three years, as such the suit is not barred by limitation. He also stated that in view of death of defendant No.4, he could not secure the details of LRs and thus there was some delay. All the reasons stated by plaintiff are not convincing. He clearly violated the terms and conditions of agreement of sale. He cannot take advantage of one clause mentioned in agreement of sale and it is for him to pay the balance within the reasonable period of time, but he failed to do so and there was no explanation of both the parties in view of the interest of 2%. It was clearly stated that vendee can file the suit for specific performance if the vendors failed to pay the sale consideration within stipulated time, it is applicable to vendors also. Plaintiff performed part of contract and agreement period is nine months and he failed to pay the balance and it was clearly stated that the date 14.01.1997 is final and it cannot be extended any further and thus the argument of the appellant Counsel is not tenable. Therefore, this Court finds that there are no merits in the appeal and is liable to be dismissed. 21. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the Judgment and decree dated 24.12.2014 in O.S.No.4 of 2003 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.