JUDGMENT : S.G. PANDIT, J. This first appeal by the plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code sof Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2010 in O.S.No.92/2008 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge at Ramanagara (for short, ‘Trial Court’), by which, the Trial Court directed refund of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a., refusing the relief of specific performance of contract against the respondents/defendants. 2. Parties would be referred to as they stand before the Trial Court. Appellant herein was the plaintiff and respondents herein were defendants before the Trial Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the agricultural lands i.e., suit schedule properties and in the month of February 2006, defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff with a proposal to sell the suit schedule properties on his behalf as well as on behalf of defendant Nos.2 to 4. Accordingly, it is stated that the plaintiff and defendants entered into sale agreement dated 27.02.2006 for a sale consideration of Rs.36,00,000/-, out of which, plaintiff paid to defendants an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- through cheque bearing No.597750/- drawn on Canara Bank, Chamarajapet Branch, Bengaluru dated 24.02.2006, which was realized by defendant No.1. It is further stated that the agreement of sale dated 27.02.2006 was signed by plaintiff and defendant No.1 and the agreement was not signed by defendant Nos.2 to 4. The plaint averments would further indicate that the plaintiff in the month of April 2006 requested defendant No.1 to produce the original documents pertaining to the suit schedule properties so as to get the sale deed registered. But, the defendants replied that the original sale deeds in respect of the suit schedule properties have been lost and requested him to proceed further on the basis of certified copies. As such, the plaintiff got published paper publication in ‘Ee Sanje’ Kannada daily newspaper on 25.06.2006, his intention to purchase the properties and with regard to loss of title deeds by the defendants. Further, it is stated that a legal notice came to be issued by defendant Nos.2 to 4 dated 05.08.2006, informing the plaintiff not to purchase the suit schedule properties from defendant No.1 since they have interest in the suit schedule properties. 4. Further, it is stated that a legal notice came to be issued by defendant Nos.2 to 4 dated 05.08.2006, informing the plaintiff not to purchase the suit schedule properties from defendant No.1 since they have interest in the suit schedule properties. 4. The plaint averments would also state that the suit schedule properties were acquired by defendant No.1 in his individual capacity, out of his self-earnings and it is not the joint family properties as indicated by defendant Nos.2 to 4 in their legal notice. At that juncture, plaintiff is said to have asked defendant No.1 to get the signatures of defendant Nos.2 to 4 and defendant No.1 expressed his inability to get the signatures of defendant Nos.2 to 4 on the sale agreement. It is stated that the plaintiff has not committed any breach of terms and conditions of the sale agreement and plaintiff was always ready and willing to comply with all the terms and conditions of the sale agreement. 5. Plaintiff further stated that he got issued legal notice on 10.08.2006 by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due to defendant Nos.1 to 4 to perform their part of obligation under the sale agreement dated 27.02.2006, as the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform is part of contract. The said notice returned un-served with postal endorsement that ‘person left the address’ and the plaintiff is stated to have got published notice through paper publication in ‘Ee Sanje’ Kannada Daily Newspaper. It is further stated that the legal notice dated 10.08.2006 categorically states the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to take the conveyance deed and it also states that the defendants have not made available the relevant documents including title deeds even after notice. As the defendants tried to alienate the properties to one Sri.Brahmaiah, plaintiff was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.402/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn)., Kanakapura for injunction not to alienate the properties during the subsistence of the agreement to sell the suit schedule properties. Plaintiff further submits that defendants were required to produce the title deeds and revenue records and get the boundaries fixed by the Survey Department and also to get the necessary rectification deed which they failed to do. Plaintiff further submits that defendants were required to produce the title deeds and revenue records and get the boundaries fixed by the Survey Department and also to get the necessary rectification deed which they failed to do. As the defendants failed to perform their part of the contract, plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.92/2008 against the defendants for a direction to the defendants to execute and register the absolute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule properties. 6. The defendant No.1 on appearance is said to have filed written statement denying the execution of sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff, but admitted the relationship of defendant Nos.2 to 4 who are his children. It is contended that the plaintiff has created the agreement of sale in order to knock off the properties from the defendants. 7. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues: 1) Does the plaintiff proves that, the defendants have agreed to sell the suit schedule properties for sale consideration of Rs.36 Lakhs and that, defendant No.1 has executed an agreement of sale on 27 th February 2006 and received a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs from the plaintiff as stated in the plaint? 2) Does the plaintiff proves that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract? 4) What order or decree? 8. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked 23 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P23. The defendants have neither led any evidence or cross-examined PW1. 9. The Trial Court on appreciation of the material on record has given a finding that the plaintiff would not be entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract since defendant Nos.2 to 4 cannot be called upon to execute the sale deed in the absence of any contract. Consequently, the Trial Court directed refund of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., to the plaintiff from the date of suit till realization. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that in pursuance of the decree, the defendants have deposited a sum of Rs.8,05,000/-before the Trial Court on 03.09.2013 itself. 11. Consequently, the Trial Court directed refund of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., to the plaintiff from the date of suit till realization. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that in pursuance of the decree, the defendants have deposited a sum of Rs.8,05,000/-before the Trial Court on 03.09.2013 itself. 11. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri.Rajesh Mahale along with learned counsel Sri.Parikshith Maliya for Sri.G.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the plaintiff, learned counsel Sri.Gopala Gowda.H.K., for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shiva Reddy for respondent No.5. Perused the entire appeal papers as well as Trial Court records. 12. Learned senior counsel Sri.Rajesh Mahale for plaintiff/appellant would submit that the Trial Court committed grave error in not granting the relief of specific performance of contract while ordering refund of earnest money of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest to the plaintiff. Learned senior counsel would submit that when the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved the agreement of sale dated 27.02.2006 (Ex.P1) and also receiving of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance by defendant No.1 and in the absence of contest by the defendants except filing written statement by defendant No.1, the Trial Court ought to have granted the relief of specific performance of contract. Learned senior counsel submits that Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 are placed on record under which, defendant No.1 had purchased the suit schedule properties to establish that the suit schedule properties are the self-earned properties of defendant No.1 and he is competent to enter into agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule properties, who has signed Ex.P1 agreement of sale. Learned senior counsel would submit that the Trial Court could not have refused the relief of specific performance of contract solely on the ground that the defendant Nos.2 to 4 have not signed the agreement who claimed interest in the suit schedule properties. 13. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that defendant Nos.2 to 4 have not filed any written statement and have neither led their evidence nor cross-examined PW1. In the absence of any material to establish their interest or undivided interest in the suit schedule properties, the Trial Court could not have refused the relief to the plaintiff. Further, it is submitted that defendant Nos.2 to 4 have no manner of right over the suit schedule properties. In the absence of any material to establish their interest or undivided interest in the suit schedule properties, the Trial Court could not have refused the relief to the plaintiff. Further, it is submitted that defendant Nos.2 to 4 have no manner of right over the suit schedule properties. Learned senior counsel would invite attention of this Court to legal notice dated 10.08.2006 (Ex.P13) and submits that the plaintiff got issued legal notice calling upon the defendants to come forward to execute the sale deed and that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Learned senior counsel would submit that in the notice, plaintiff has made it clear that the plaintiff is ready to pay the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.31,00,000/- and to get the sale deed registered in respect of the suit schedule properties. When the plaintiff has clearly indicated in his notice that he is ready to pay the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.31,00,000/-, the plaintiff need not further establish his financial capacity, that too in the absence of contest or cross-examination in that aspect by the defendants. Thus, it is prayed to allow the appeal and to grant the relief of specific performance of agreement at Ex.P1. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants support the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Further, learned counsel for the defendants would submit that the defendant No.1 could not have entered into agreement to sell the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff and that defendant Nos.2 to 4 by issuing legal notice to the plaintiff made it clear that defendant No.1 cannot sell the suit schedule properties. Further, learned counsel submits that at any point of time, plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Except making averment that he is ready to pay the balance sale consideration, he has not produced any document to establish his financial capacity to pay the balance sale consideration. Further, learned counsel would submit that though the legal notice was issued in the year 2006 calling upon the defendants to execute registered sale deed, the suit was filed only in the year 2008, which itself is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract during the relevant period. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers as well as the Trial Court records, the following points would arise for our consideration: (i) Whether the plaintiff proves the execution of agreement of sale dated 27.02.2006 (Ex.P1) by defendant No.1 and the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- by plaintiff as advance? (ii) Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? (iii) Whether interference is required with the impugned judgment and decree at the hands of this Court? 15. Answer to the above point No.1 in the affirmative and point Nos.2 and 3 in the negative, for the following reasons: 16. Since all the points are interlinked, the same are taken up together. 17. The plaintiff’s prayer is for a direction to the defendants to execute sale deed in respect of the suit schedule properties on the basis of agreement of sale dated 27.02.2006 (Ex.P1) executed by defendant No.1, the father of defendants No.2 to 4. In terms of Ex.P1, the sale agreement dated 27.02.2006, the sale consideration is Rs.36,00,000/- and it also indicates payment of Rs.5,00,000/- towards advance amount by way of cheque bearing No.597750 dated 24.02.2006 drawn on Canara Bank, Chamarajapet Branch, Bengaluru. The said cheque is said to have been realized by defendant No.1, whereas the plaintiff was liable to pay balance sale consideration of Rs.31,00,000/- at the time of registration of sale deed, on completion of other formalities. Ex.P10 and Ex.P11/sale deeds would indicate that defendant No.1 purchased the suit schedule properties and it is his self-acquired property. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 have admittedly not signed Ex.P1/Agreement of sale, but they claimed interest in the suit schedule properties. The defendants 2 to 4 got issued notice dated05.08.2006 communicating their objection for sale/purcahse of suit schedule properties by plaintiff. Admittedly, defendants 2 to 4 have not filed their written statement and they have also not cross- examined P.W.1/plaintiff. There is no material whatsoever to support their contention. Though defendant No.1 in his written statement denied the execution of Ex.P1/Agreement of sale, no evidence is adduced in support of his contention. Admittedly, defendants 2 to 4 have not filed their written statement and they have also not cross- examined P.W.1/plaintiff. There is no material whatsoever to support their contention. Though defendant No.1 in his written statement denied the execution of Ex.P1/Agreement of sale, no evidence is adduced in support of his contention. In the absence of cross-examination or leading evidence to substantiate their contentions, the case of the plaintiff with regard to execution of agreement of sale and payment of advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- through Cheque which is realized by defendant No.1 is to be believed and it is held that the plaintiff has proved execution of Ex.P1/agreement of sale dated 27.2.2006 as well as payment of advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. 18. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff/appellant contended that the trial court committed a grave error in not granting specific performance of agreement, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is also submitted that only on the ground that defendants No.2 to 4 have not signed the agreement, the trial Court could not have denied the relief of specific performance. 19. It is true that when defendant No.1 is the owner of suit schedule properties, having purchased under Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 sale deeds, only because defendants No.2 to 4 have not signed Ex.P1/ agreement to sell, the trial Court could not have denied the relief of specific performance. But, this Court being fact finding Court in statutory first appeal has to examine whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and whether the plaintiff has established his financial capacity to pay the balance sale consideration. Unless the plaintiff proves his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract by producing cogent material, the plaintiff would not be entitled for relief of specific performance. Merely because, the defendants have not cross-examined the plaintiff on that aspect and that the defendants have not lead their evidence, let alone would not entitle the plaintiff for relief of specific performance in the absence of proving his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Merely because, the defendants have not cross-examined the plaintiff on that aspect and that the defendants have not lead their evidence, let alone would not entitle the plaintiff for relief of specific performance in the absence of proving his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. In the absence of leading evidence by defendants and cross-examining PW.1., Court has responsibility and duty bound to examine as to whether the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his party of contract in view of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In terms of Ex.P1, agreement to sell dated 27.02.2006, the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to defendant No.1 out of sale consideration of Rs.36,00,000/-. Major amount of Rs.31,00,000/- was due from the plaintiff to the defendants towards sale consideration. 20. The plaintiff in his legal notice placed on record as Ex.P13 has averred that from the date of sale agreement till issuance of notice at Ex.P13, the plaintiff is ready to pay the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.31,00,000/- and to get the sale deed executed. The plaintiff has not established his financial capacity or indicated his financial capacity as on the date of Ex.P13 or subsequently. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, readiness and willingness are not one, but two separate elements. Readiness means, capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which would include financial position to pay the purchase price, whereas the willingness refers to the intention of the plaintiff, as a purchaser to perform his part of the contract. 21. In the instant case, except stating that he is ready to pay the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.31,00,000/- which is substantial amount as on 2006, the plaintiff has failed to establish his financial capacity to pay the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff in his evidence has not uttered a single word about his financial capacity or placed on record any document to indicate his financial position. Establishing financial position or financial capacity would not mean that the plaintiff shall keep ready the cash or amount in his account as on the relevant date, establishing the financial capacity. 22. Financial position would mean that the plaintiff/purchaser has to establish that he has the capacity to garner the necessary finance or balance sale consideration as on the relevant date. 23. 22. Financial position would mean that the plaintiff/purchaser has to establish that he has the capacity to garner the necessary finance or balance sale consideration as on the relevant date. 23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in (2022) 14 SCC 793 in the case of P.DAIVASIGAMANI VS. S.SAMBANDAN while considering Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 explained the meaning of readiness and willingness. Readiness would mean that capacity of plaintiff to perform the contract which would include financial position to pay the purchase price and willingness refers to the intention of plaintiff as a purchaser to perform his part of contract including the conduct of plaintiff/purchaser and attending circumstances. Relevant paragraphs 21 and 22 of the above decision reads as follows: “ 21. 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 scrutinising the conduct of the plaintiff purchaser, including attending circumstances [See para 2 in Ganesh Dassji v. Sita Ram Thapar, (1996) 4 SCC 526 ]. 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 [See para 5 in N.P. Thirugnanam v. R. Jagan Mohan Rao, (1995) 5 SCC 115 . Also see Ardeshir Mama v. Flora Sassoon, 1928 SCC OnLine PC 43 : (1927-28) 55 IA 360 : AIR 1928 PC 208 ]. 22. The expression “readiness and willingness” used in Section 16(c) of the said Act, has been interpreted in a catena of decisions by this Court, in the light of facts and circumstances of the cases under consideration for the purpose of granting or refusing to grant the relief of specific performance of a contract. The said expression cannot be interpreted in a straitjacket formula. The said expression cannot be interpreted in a straitjacket formula. In a very apt decision of this Court in Syed Dastagir v. T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty [Syed Dastagir v. T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty, (1999) 6 SCC 337 ] , a three-Judge Bench of this Court, construing a plea of “readiness and willingness to perform” in view of the requirement of Section 16(c) and its Explanation, observed as under : (SCC p.341, para 9) “9. So the whole gamut of the issue raised is, how to construe a plea specially with reference to Section 16(c) and what are the obligations which the plaintiff has to comply with in reference to his plea and whether the plea of the plaintiff could not be construed to conform to the requirement of the aforesaid section, or does this section require specific words to be pleaded that he has performed or has always been ready and is willing to perform his part of the contract. In construing a plea in any pleading, courts must keep in mind that a plea is not an expression of art and science but an expression through words to place fact and law of one's case for a relief. Such an expression may be pointed, precise, sometimes vague but still it could be gathered what he wants to convey through only by reading the whole pleading, depending on the person drafting a plea. In India most of the pleas are drafted by counsel hence the aforesaid difference of pleas which inevitably differ from one to the other. Thus, to gather true spirit behind a plea it should be read as a whole. This does not distract one from performing his obligations as required under a statute. But to test whether he has performed his obligations, one has to see the pith and substance of a plea. Where a statute requires any fact to be pleaded then that has to be pleaded may be in any form. The same plea may be stated by different persons through different words; then how could it be constricted to be only in any particular nomenclature or word. Unless a statute specifically requires a plea to be in any particular form, it can be in any form. No specific phraseology or language is required to take such a plea. The same plea may be stated by different persons through different words; then how could it be constricted to be only in any particular nomenclature or word. Unless a statute specifically requires a plea to be in any particular form, it can be in any form. No specific phraseology or language is required to take such a plea. The language in Section 16(c) does not require any specific phraseology but only that the plaintiff must aver that he has performed or has always been and is willing to perform his part of the contract. So the compliance of “readiness and willingness” has to be in spirit and substance and not in letter and form. So to insist for a mechanical production of the exact words of a statute is to insist for the form rather than the essence. So the absence of form cannot dissolve an essence if already pleaded. (vii). In terms of Section 16-(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963, readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent for grant of specific performance of agreement. Unless and until the plaintiff proves by producing cogent evidence that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract from the date of entering into agreement till conclusion of the suit, the plaintiff would not be entitled for relief of specific performance. The readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract shall be throughout. The readiness refers to the financial capacity and willingness refers to conduct of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract.” 24. The material on record would not remotely suggest readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract i.e., to pay the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff at least shall show his inclination to get the sale deed executed by offering to pay the balance sale consideration by showing his financial status or he had the capacity to garner required balance sale consideration. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he was ready with the balance sale consideration. On the hand, the only averment in Ex.P13 notice dated 10.08.2006 is to the effect that the plaintiff is ready to pay the balance sale consideration. However, PW1 has not adduced anything about the willingness or financial capacity in his evidence. 25. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he was ready with the balance sale consideration. On the hand, the only averment in Ex.P13 notice dated 10.08.2006 is to the effect that the plaintiff is ready to pay the balance sale consideration. However, PW1 has not adduced anything about the willingness or financial capacity in his evidence. 25. It is also settled position of law that the plaintiff has to succeed on his own merits not on the weakness of the defendant. In the above circumstances, this Court on the material on record has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract to pay the balance sale consideration. Moreover, Ex.P13-notice is dated 10.08.2006 whereas the plaint is presented before the trial Court only on 24.03.2008, nearly 2 years later from the date of issuance of legal notice, which itself shows the plaintiff’s interest or readiness and willingness in getting the sale deed executed. 26. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the plaintiff/appellant. Hence, the following order: The appeal stands dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 15.09.2010 in O.S.No.92/2008 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge at Ramanagara stands confirmed.