Judgment : (Rajani Dubey, J.) 1. The plaintiff/appellant has preferred this first appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2018 passed by 1 st Additional District Judge, Raigarh (C.G.), in Civil Suit No.12-A/2014, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant herein for specific performance of contract was dismissed. The parties to this appeal shall be referred herein as per their description before the learned trial Court. 2. Brief facts of the case, as per the plaint averments, are that on 17.10.2010, defendant No.1 executed an agreement to sell of land bearing Kh. No.2/10/1(5/5/2) area 0.117 hectare, 12585 sq.ft., P.H. No.13 situated at village Baikunthpur, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) (for short ‘the suit land’) which was in his possession for sale consideration of Rs.438/- per sq. ft. and received Rs.10,00,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff, and it was agreed between the parties that the sale deed would be executed after receiving balance consideration from the plaintiff till 15.01.2011. It was pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff requested the defendant No.1 many times to receive balance sale consideration of Rs.45,12,230/- and execute the sale deed, but it was told by the defendant No.1 that he would inform the plaintiff after receiving map and photocopy of sale. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and comply with the contract dated 17.10.2010. The plaintiff also sent a notice to defendant No.1 on 14.10.2013 through his Advocate, and on receipt of notice, the defendant No.1 assured the plaintiff that he would obtain copy of sale and map and get the sale deed executed within one month, but till date the defendant No.1 did not comply with it. Therefore, the suit for specific performance of contract was filed by the plaintiff. 3. The defendant No. 01 has filed written statement to the effect that defendant No.1 has not executed agreement dated 17.10.2010 with the plaintiff with regard to the suit property and he has not received Rs.10,00,000/- as advance from the plaintiff. It was also averred that the defendant No.1 has not executed any agreement or any deal with the plaintiff. There is no cause of action in the suit. The suit is time barred and no ad valorem court fee has been paid, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. It was also averred that the defendant No.1 has not executed any agreement or any deal with the plaintiff. There is no cause of action in the suit. The suit is time barred and no ad valorem court fee has been paid, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the suit is time barred and the plaintiff has failed to prove his case. Hence, this first appeal filed by the plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submits that the learned trial Court recorded its finding that the plaintiff had established the execution of agreement to sell by the defendant No.1, which was binding on the parties in respect of the property described in the suit and the defendant No.1 also received advance amount of Rs.10 Lakhs but the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that she was ready and willing to perform her part of contract, which is at all not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel further submits that in a case of specific performance the plaintiff has to prove valid agreement of sale, breach of contract by defendant and readiness & willingness on the part of plaintiff to perform his/her part of obligation in terms of the contract, and in the present case the proper issue was framed by the learned trial Court and the issue No.1 with regard to execution of agreement was proved in favour of the plaintiff. The only obligation cast in the agreement on the plaintiff was to pay the balance sale consideration on the date of registration and the plaintiff has been ready and willing at all material time to pay the balance sale consideration amount to the defendant No.1 on execution of the deed of conveyance of the suit property. Even the plaintiff through his legal notice called upon the defendant No.1 to receive the balance sale consideration and complete the sale transaction but the defendant No.1 avoided the same on one pretext or another. Even the plaintiff through his legal notice called upon the defendant No.1 to receive the balance sale consideration and complete the sale transaction but the defendant No.1 avoided the same on one pretext or another. The aforesaid circumstances of the case itself denotes the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff, as such, the finding of the learned trial Court that the plaintiff has failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract is erroneous and liable to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate settled legal position of law that when there is a written contract, the intention of the parties executing the contract has to be gathered only from the terms and conditions agreed upon the subsequent conduct of the parties is irrelevant for the purpose of construing the agreement. The construction must depend upon the intention of the parties when it was made, which is to be ascertained from its terms, read in the light of the facts known to both parties, when it was concluded. As such, the only conclusion can be drawn that the learned trial Court has stretched its imagination too far while construing the document in hand and made out a case which was never pleaded nor established by the defendant No.1. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that in a suit for specific performance time may not be treated as essence of the contract. The agreement in the present case suggests an outer time limit of execution of sale deed by 15.01.2014 in respect of the suit property but the compulsory obligations i.e. permission/documents required for registration from the State authorities was to be obtained by the defendant No.1 and thereafter, was required to register sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after obtaining balance sale consideration but the defendant No.1 has always on the pretext of obtaining documents/photocopy of sale and map of suit land deferred the execution and registration of sale deed, for which the plaintiff cannot be held accountable. Therefore, the finding of the learned trial Court with regard to cause of action to file the suit started running from the one-two months after the date of execution of agreement, causes miscarriage of justice, particularly when the date was fixed by both the parties to the agreement. Therefore, the finding of the learned trial Court with regard to cause of action to file the suit started running from the one-two months after the date of execution of agreement, causes miscarriage of justice, particularly when the date was fixed by both the parties to the agreement. Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that all the ingredients for grant of decree of specific performance of contract have been brought home by the plaintiff and conduct of the defendant No.1 also entitles the plaintiff for grant of decree of specific performance in her favour. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of contractual obligation and the defendant No.1 has miserably failed to perform his part of the contract although various demands have been made in this regard by the plaintiff. As per interpretation of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff is entitled for grant of decree in her favour. Learned counsel also submits that the ingredients for grant of specific performance of contract have been brought on record and even after that denial by the learned Court is a finding not sustainable in law. The finding of the learned trial Court that the suit is barred by limitation is not in accordance with the provisions of the Limitation Act applicable in the present set of facts and events. The learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and decree has not appreciated oral and documentary evidence in its true perspective and gave wrong finding. Thus, the impugned judgment and decree passed against the plaintiff being perverse and contrary to the fact and evidence pleaded by the parties, is liable to be set aside. 7. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Aloka Bose V. Parmatma Devi and Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 582 , Man Kaur (dead) by LRs. V. Hartar Singh Sangha reported in (2010) 10 SCC 512 , Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (dead) Through LRs. V. Muddasani Sarojana reported in (2016) 122 SCC 288 P. Daivasigamani V. S. Sambandan reported in (2022) 14 SCC 793 , Parswanath Saha V. Bandhana Modak (Das) reported in AIR 2025 SC 280 and the decision of High Court of Rajasthan in the matter of Smt. Shanta Meena V. Smt. Kulshree and Another reported in AIR 2011 Rajasthan 99. 8. V. Muddasani Sarojana reported in (2016) 122 SCC 288 P. Daivasigamani V. S. Sambandan reported in (2022) 14 SCC 793 , Parswanath Saha V. Bandhana Modak (Das) reported in AIR 2025 SC 280 and the decision of High Court of Rajasthan in the matter of Smt. Shanta Meena V. Smt. Kulshree and Another reported in AIR 2011 Rajasthan 99. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supporting the impugned judgment and decree submits that the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove her case and the learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Thus, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 9. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Janki Vishdeo Bhojwani and Another V. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Others reported in (2005) 2 SCC 217 and order dated 28.11.2024 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13933 of 2021 [R. Shama Naik V. Srinivasiah] [ 2024 INSC 927 ] 10. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2 submits that no relief has been sought for by the respondent No.2 and the State is formal party in the suit. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. Before the learned trail Court, the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement dated 17.10.2010. The learned trial Court, on the basis of pleading of both the parties, framed 09 issues, out of which important issues are 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7. For ready reference, the Issue Nos. 12. Before the learned trail Court, the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement dated 17.10.2010. The learned trial Court, on the basis of pleading of both the parties, framed 09 issues, out of which important issues are 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7. For ready reference, the Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 are reproduced herein as under :- dz- okniz’Uk fu"d"kZ 1- D;k izfroknhx dza- 01 }kjk vius HkwfeLokeh gd dh Hkwfe cSdq.Biqj i-g-ua- & 13] rglhy ftyk jk;x< fLFkr [kljk uacj 2@10@1@5@5@2 j- 0-117 gs- 12585 oxZQqV nj ls oknh dks fodz; dk lkSnk fn-17-10-2010 dks fd;k Fkk \ Þgkaß Þizekf.krAß 2- D;k izfroknh dza- 1 }kjk mDr lkSns ds isVs nl yk[k #i;s ,Mokal ysdj Hkwfe dks fodz; gsrq ,d fodz; bdjkjukek xokgksa ds le{k fu”ikfnr djk;k x;k Fkk \ Þgkaß Þizekf.krAß 3- D;k mDr bdjkjukekuqlkj ‘ks”k izfrQy dh jkf’k fn- 15-01-2011 rd oknh ls izkIr dj Hkwfe dks fodz; i= oknh ds i{k esa fu”ikfnr djk nsus dks izfroknh dzekad 01 }kjk opu fn;k x;k \ Þizekf.kr ughaß 4- D;k oknh mDr fodz; lafonk fn- 17-10-2010 dk vius Hkkx dk ikyu gsrq rRij ,oa rS;kj gS] fdUrq oknh ds ckj&ckj fuosnu ds ckn Hkh izfroknh dza- 01 }kjk fodz; i= fu”iknu ugha fd;k x;k gS \ Þizekf.kr ughaß 5- xxxx xxxx 6- xxxx xxxx 7- D;k oknh dk okn vof/k ckf/kr gS \ gkWa 13. The learned trial Court after going through the evidence, pleading of the parties, finds that on 17.10.2010, an agreement to sell of suit property was executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 received Rs.10 Lakh as earnest money & decided Issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff, however, the learned trial Court recorded its finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove this fact that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and also held that the suit is time barred and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 14. The plaintiff filed copy of agreement dated 17.10.2010 (Ex.P/1), according to which, defendant No.1 had received Rs.10 Lakh and it was agreed by the defendant No.1 that he would execute the sale deed and hand over the possession of the suit property by 15.01.2011, as such the limitation of the agreement was 15.01.2011. The plaintiff filed the suit on 13.01.2014. The plaintiff filed copy of agreement dated 17.10.2010 (Ex.P/1), according to which, defendant No.1 had received Rs.10 Lakh and it was agreed by the defendant No.1 that he would execute the sale deed and hand over the possession of the suit property by 15.01.2011, as such the limitation of the agreement was 15.01.2011. The plaintiff filed the suit on 13.01.2014. It is clear from the statement of both the parties that plaintiff Smt. Krushna Devi Agrawal did not appear before the learned trial Court. Photocopy of general authorization letter was filed by the plaintiff but this document did not get exhibited by the plaintiff. Suresh Kumar Agrawal, husband of plaintiff, appeared before the learned trial Court as PW/1, who has stated that an agreement to sell of suit property was executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 – Vishnu Soni on 17.10.2010 and he filed photocopy of power of attorney dated 07.09.1993. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Janki (supra) held in para 12 as under :- “12. In the context of the directions given by this Court, shifting the burden of proving on the appellants that they have a share in the property, it was obligatory on the appellants to have entered the box and discharged the burden by themselves. The question whether the appellants have any independent source of income and have contributed towards the purchase of the property from their own independent income can be only answered by the appellants themselves and not by a mere holder of power of attorney from them. The power-of-attorney holder does not have personal knowledge of the matter of the appellants and therefore he can neither depose on his personal knowledge nor can he be cross- examined on those facts which are to the personal knowledge of the principal.” 16. The plaintiff’s witness Sheikh Asif Ali filed his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC stating therein that Suresh Kumar Agrawal (PW/1) on 17.10.2010, when he was sitting in the office of Vishnu Soni’s brother Ashok Soni, then Suresh Kumar Agrawal (PW/1) came and asked defendant No.1 - Vishu Soni whether he has prepared agreement, to which , defendant No.1 – Vishnu Soni told that he has prepared an agreement then Suresh Kumar Agrawal (PW/1) gave Rs.10 Lakh to Vishu Soni in cash in his presence and Vishnu Soni signed the agreement in front of him. He has also stated that Sunil Agrawal and he also signed this agreement as witnesses. 17. Defendant No.1 – Vishnu Soni, in his affidavit filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC, not only denied the execution of agreement but also denied his signature on agreement and receiving of any advance amount. 18. The learned trial Court decided the Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff and finds that the plaintiff has proved this fact that defendant No.1 has executed an agreement dated 17.10.2010 to sell suit property and received Rs.10 Lakh as advance. Both the plaintiff’s witnesses have proved the execution of agreement dated 17.10.2010 (Ex.P/1) and signature of defendant No.1-Vishnu Soni. The defendant No.1 did not file any cross appeal against this finding of the learned trial Court. 19. It is apparent from the documents on record that the plaintiff gave first notice 14.10.2013 (Ex.P/2) to defendant No.1- Vishnu Soni but in courier receipt (Ex.P/3) and acknowledgment thereof (Ex.P/4) did not prove this fact that this notice was delivered to defendant No.1 and the plaintiff has failed to prove this fact that he is ready and willing to perform her part of contract. The plaintiff did not appear before the learned trial Court. Suresh Kumar Agrawal (PW/1) is husband of plaintiff and he has stated that few days after the execution of agreement to sell the suit property by the defendant No.1, he verbally requested the defendant No.1 several times that the defendant No.1 should obtain the photocopy of sale, map etc. of the suit property from the Tahsildar and after receiving the remaining consideration amount of Rs.45,12,230/-, execute the sale deed of the suit property in favour of his wife plaintiff Krishna Devi, but it is apparent from this document that the agreement got executed on 17.10.2010 and as per this agreement, date of registration was fixed for 15.01.2011 and the plaintiff sent a notice on 14.10.2013. 20. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of R. Shama Naik (supra) held in paras 9 to 13 as under :- “9. There is a legion of precedents on the subject of readiness and willingness. 10. The law is well settled. 20. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of R. Shama Naik (supra) held in paras 9 to 13 as under :- “9. There is a legion of precedents on the subject of readiness and willingness. 10. The law is well settled. The plaintiff is obliged not only to make specific statement and averments in the plaint but is also obliged to adduce necessary oral and documentary evidence to show the availability of funds to make payment in terms of the contract in time. 11. There is a fine distinction between readiness and willingness to perform the contract. Both the ingredients are necessary for the relief of specific performance. 12. While readiness means the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which would include his financial position, willingness relates to the conduct of the plaintiff. 13. The High Court in first appeal upon appreciation of the evidence on record both oral and documentary has arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.” 21. In the light of above decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, in the present case also, it is apparent that the plaintiff did not file any document which could show her financial position and it is clear from notice that the same was issued/sent to defendant after three years of execution of agreement (Ex.P/1). It is also apparent from agreement (Ex.P/1) that the date of execution of sale deed was mentioned as 15.01.2011 and in the said date whitener was used and the month was written in different ink. Thus, the learned trial Court recorded its finding that there is overwriting in the date of agreement (Ex.P/1) and no initial of defendant No.1 was taken at the place where whitener was used. Thus, from the aforesaid it is manifestly clear that the agreement was executed on 17.10.2010 and the suit was instituted on 13.01.2014, which prima-facie established that the suit was time barred. Even if it is considered that the date of execution of sale deed of suit property was agreed as 15.01.2011, then also the plaintiff has failed to prove this fact that this overwriting made in the date was with the consent of defendant No.1. So, the learned trial Court recorded its finding against the plaintiff in this regard in Issue Nos. So, the learned trial Court recorded its finding against the plaintiff in this regard in Issue Nos. 4 and 7, which are related to readiness and willingness of plaintiff & limitation respectively. The learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence of both the parties and has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Issue No.2 with regard to earnest money has been decided in favour of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 received Rs.10 Lakh as advance, as such, the plaintiff is entitled to receive her money. 23. To sum up this issue, we delve into the agreement to sell (Ex.P/1), according to which, the date of execution of sale deed as 15.01.2011 was not proved by the plaintiff with consent of both the parties and neither there is any initial of defendant No.1 after utilizing whitener on it, as such, the suit of plaintiff is time barred and she is not entitled to get any relief in time barred suit. 24. In view of the aforesaid discussion of evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is based on oral and documentary evidence filed by both the parties. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. The appeal being without any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 25. Let a decree be drawn-up accordingly.