JUDGMENT : Challenging the decree and judgment passed in the suit filed for specific performance, the present appeal suit has been filed. 2. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that she came to know through brokers that the defendant is going to sell the suit property. Accordingly, the plaintiff approached the defendant and the defendant agreed to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.21 lakhs. The plaintiff had paid an advance of Rs.10 lakhs in instalments in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter, the suit agreement came to be registered on 28.10.2010. The defendant prayed one year time to execute the sale deed by producing all the parent deeds, patta, encumbrance certificate in respect of the suit property. The balance sale consideration to be paid in such time. Despite the defendant has agreed to hand over all the documents, he has not handed over the documents and defendant started adopting delaying tactics. Thereafter, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant is trying to sell the property to some other person. Therefore, the plaintiff had issued legal notice to the defendant calling upon her to receive the balance sale consideration and complete the sale. The plaintiff was always ready with the balance sale consideration. Hence, the suit. 4. The defence taken in the written statement to the effect that the plaintiff was running a chit business and the defendant was known to the plaintiff through her neighbour. The defendant subscribed a chit with the plaintiff. Thereafter, she borrowed a loan for the purpose of construction of a house in the suit property. For the said loan, the defendant had obtained signatures in blank papers. One such document has been used as a suit agreement. The defendants had also paid interest at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month and they had paid interest for several months. Hence, opposed the suit. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the trial Court : 1. Whether the sale agreement dated 28.10.2020 is true, valid and enforceable? 2. Whether the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform the contract? 3. Whether the defendant borrowed loan from the plaintiff and as security gave the original deed as alleged? 4. Whether the sale agreement dated 28.10.2020 is true, valid and enforceable? 2. Whether the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform the contract? 3. Whether the defendant borrowed loan from the plaintiff and as security gave the original deed as alleged? 4. Whether the defendant repaid the monthly interest of Rs.25,000/- per month for several months as alleged? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for? 6. To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled to? 6. On the side of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 have been marked. On the side of the defendant, her husband has been examined as D.W.1 and no document has been marked on her side. 7. The trial Court considering entire evidence and documents granted specific performance. Challenging the same, the present Appeal Suit came to be filed. 8. The main contention of the appellant is that though the sale agreement is a registered one, the parties have never intended to sell the property. Infact, the said document has been executed in respect of a loan transaction. The denial by the party indicate that the agreement is not intended for sale of the property. As far as readiness and willingness is concerned, the same has not been established. The plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. Hence, prayed to set aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court. 9. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the plaintiff has not entered into the witness box and only her husband has been examined as D.W.1. Further, while adducing additional evidence before this Court, D.W.1 has admitted that he is not aware of the nature of the contract. Therefore, it is his contention that once, a registered document has been executed, the defendant cannot take a contrary plea other than the contents of the documents. The trial Court after analysing entire documents has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. It is his further contention that as the defendant has not entered into the witness box and only her husband has been examined, adverse inference has to be drawn against the defendant. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao and another reported in [1993] 3 Supreme Court Cases 573. 10. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao and another reported in [1993] 3 Supreme Court Cases 573. 10. On the basis of the above submissions, now the points that arise for consideration are : 1. Whether the suit agreement is not intended for sale of the suit property? 2. Whether the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance as prayed for? 11. Point No. 1 : It is an admitted fact that the Ex.A.1 came to be executed between the parties on 28.10.2020. Whereas, it is the contention of the defendant that the agreement came to be executed in a loan transaction. But the fact remains that the document has been registered. It is relevant to note that in the entire written statement, it is not pleaded about the nature of loan availed by the defendant at the relevant point of time. D.W.1 has stated in his evidence that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.10 lakhs from the plaintiff. As a written contract is printed and registered between the parties, unless convincing evidence is brought on record, the parties cannot go beyond the terms of the contract. As the agreement has been admitted, without any other materials to substantiate the loan transaction which resulted in registration of the document, the plea of the appellant cannot be countenanced and the defendant cannot take a contrary stand other than pleading, as per Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 12. Point Nos.2 & 3 : It is the specific case of the plaintiff that she came into contact with the defendant only through a broker and the agreement has been finalised between them. The entire plaint proceeded as if the defendant was known to the plaintiff through a broker for the first time. Whereas, it is categorical admission of the plaintiff in her evidence that the defendant was known to her in a chit transaction. P.W.1 has admitted in her evidence that to finalise the contract, she has not availed service of a broker. Further, she has admitted in her evidence that the advance of Rs.10 lakhs has been paid in lumpsum on the date of agreement itself, which is totally contradictory to her pleadings. P.W.1 has admitted in her evidence that to finalise the contract, she has not availed service of a broker. Further, she has admitted in her evidence that the advance of Rs.10 lakhs has been paid in lumpsum on the date of agreement itself, which is totally contradictory to her pleadings. In her pleadings, it is the case of the plaintiff that she had paid the advance in instalments, even before the agreement. 13. Whereas, in the evidence of P.W.1, she has stated that the amount has been paid in lumpsum. Further the entire evidence of P.W.1 indicate that he has no idea about the suit property. She not even know the extent of the property. Further, he is not aware of the nature of construction put up in the suit property and he has not verified the title deeds. Further, it is also admitted that the defendant had subscribed in a chit run by the plaintiff. These facts clearly establish the falsity of the case of the plaintiff to seek specific performance. Though a registered document cannot be assailed by way of oral evidence as held in point No.1, the evidence of P.W.1 in fact makes her case improbable for the simple reason, if really the plaintiff intended to purchase the property, her normal conduct would be to know the nature of the property going to be purchased. She does not even have an idea about the nature of the property. 14. That apart, it is further to be noted that having entered into an agreement on 28.10.2020, legal notice has been issued for the first time on 26.10.2021, which is two days prior to expiry of one year period. All these days, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to perform her part of the obligation. Therefore, merely sending a legal notice just before the expiry of the limitation period, one cannot contend that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Further, scanning of P.W.1's entire evidence, there is no materials whatsoever placed on record to show that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. Of course, in view of the amendment of Section 16 of the Amended Act 18 of 2018, the mandatory provision of pleading about readiness and willingness is dispensed with, but the same will not dispense with the proof of readiness and willingness. Of course, in view of the amendment of Section 16 of the Amended Act 18 of 2018, the mandatory provision of pleading about readiness and willingness is dispensed with, but the same will not dispense with the proof of readiness and willingness. Therefore, it is incumbent on the plaintiff to establish and prove readiness and willingness to seek the relief of specific performance. 15. Further, a perusal of entire evidence, absolutely, there is no materials available on record to show that the plaintiff had the capacity to mobilize remaining sale consideration of Rs.11 lakhs after entering into a contract. Further, to show that she had sufficient money to pay the remaining sale consideration, no proof, whatsoever, has been filed. No bank accounts have been filed. Therefore, unless the twin conditions of readiness and willingness are established, the plaintiff cannot seek the relief of specific performance as a matter of right. Readiness is the capacity of a person to mobilize funds and willingness is the mental attitude to complete the transaction. Unless both readiness and willingness is established by probabilities or in evidence, merely on the basis of the agreement, one is not entitled to specific performance. The very conduct of the plaintiff that she has not even visited the suit property and she has no idea about the property sought to be purchased, it can be easily inferred that there is no mental attitude on the part of the plaintiff to purchase the property. Accordingly, willingness is totally absent on her part. Though after amendment by Act 8 of 2018, the relief of specific performance is not a discretion one, but the fact remains that it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness, which has not been done so. Considering the above fact, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is certainly not entitled to specific performance. 16. As far as the judgment relied on by the appellant in Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao and another cited supra, a party who does not enter into the witness box, adverse inference has to be drawn against him is concerned, absolutely, there is no dispute in this regard. But the fact remains that D.W.1 is none other the husband of the defendant, who is competent to give evidence under section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act. But the fact remains that D.W.1 is none other the husband of the defendant, who is competent to give evidence under section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act. In a civil proceedings, parties to the civil suit, husband or wife shall be a competent witness. In such view of the matter, merely on the ground that the defendant has not been examined, adverse inference cannot be drawn against her. 17. In view of the admissions made by the defendant before this Court, that she has borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled for the alternative relief of return of advance amount of Rs.10,00,000- with interest at the rate of 2.5% per month as agreed between them. This Court is of the view that such a rate of interest is usurious, taking note of the admitted position of the parties, the plaintiff is certainly entitled to return of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of agreement till the date of realization. The points are answered accordingly. 18. In the result, this appeal suit is partly allowed and the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of agreement till the date of realization and the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.182 of 2021 dated 22.08.2022 is set aside. It is made clear that till the amount is realized, there shall be charge over the suit property. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no Order as to costs.