JUDGMENT : RENUKA YARA, J. Heard Sri Peddapally Sai Kiran, learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.2 and 3 and Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff. 2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/defendant Nos.2 and 3 aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short ‘the learned Judge’), dated 19.09.2019 in O.S.No.55 of 2011, whereby, the suit filed for directing the appellants and respondent Nos.3 to 5 to execute registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff in respect of the property i.e. Plots bearing Nos.165 and 166 admeasuring an area of 366 sq.yds. in Sy.Nos.249 and 250 situated at Isnapur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District (for short ‘the suit schedule property’ has been decreed. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.55 of 2011. Facts of the case: 4. The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of specific performance of Agreement of sale dated 26.07.2008/Ex.A1 and to declare the sale deeds i.e. document bearing No.3398 of 2009, dated 23.04.2009/Ex.A7 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and document bearing No.9971 of 2009, dated 05.11.2009/Ex.A8 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3, as null and void. 5. Initially the suit was filed against defendant Nos.1 to 3. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 died and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendant Nos.4 to 6. 6. Defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit schedule property having purchased it from defendant No.2 under a registered sale deed vide document No.10083 of 2008, dated 17.07.2008/Ex.A2. Defendant No.1 due to financial needs offered to sell the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.11,00,000/-. Consequently, defendant No.1 requested the plaintiff to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to discharge loan. On the basis of the agreement reached between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, a Sale Agreement/Ex.A1 was executed on 26.07.2008 on stamp papers on payment of Rs.10,00,000/- to defendant No.1 in the presence of witnesses. In the said Agreement, it was agreed that the balance sale consideration was to be paid at the time of execution of registered sale deed. The plaintiff demanded execution of registered sale deed but defendant No.1 postponed on one pretext or the other. In the said Agreement, it was agreed that the balance sale consideration was to be paid at the time of execution of registered sale deed. The plaintiff demanded execution of registered sale deed but defendant No.1 postponed on one pretext or the other. While things stood thus, defendant No.1 got issued a legal notice dated 13.04.2010/Ex.A3 alleging that he was in need of money and took Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff by deposit of title deeds. It is further alleged that at that time, defendant No.1’s signatures were obtained on cheques and promissory note by the plaintiff. On receipt of the legal notice, the plaintiff approached defendant No.1 and questioned about the notice. When there was no reply, the plaintiff got issued a reply notice dated 19.07.2010/Ex.A4, but, defendant No.1 did not give any reply to the reply notice of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s case is that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but, defendant No.1 is not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. When the plaintiff got issued reply notice, defendant No.1 informed the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was sold in favour of defendant No.2. Upon enquiry, the plaintiff learned that defendant No.1 executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 23.04.2009 vide document No.3398 of 2009/Ex.A7 and that defendant No.2 in turn executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 on 05.11.2009 vide document No.9971 of 2009/Ex.A8. After obtaining the documents, when defendant No.3 was making attempts to alienate the suit schedule property, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of Agreement of sale executed by defendant No.1 in his favour. 7. The defendant Nos.4 to 6 remained exparte. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed written statements. In sum and substance, defendant No.2 denied execution of Ex.A1 Agreement of sale by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 purchased the suit schedule property from defendant No.1 under a registered sale deed document bearing No.3398 of 2009, dated 23.04.2009/Ex.A7. Defendant No.1 assured to handover the link documents but did not do so. Thereafter, defendant No.2 learned that in collusion with the plaintiff, the Agreement of sale is created and the same is not sustainable. Defendant No.2 claimed to be a bonafide purchaser. Defendant No.3 sailed along with defendant No.2 and claimed to be bonafide purchaser from defendant No.2. 8. Defendant No.1 assured to handover the link documents but did not do so. Thereafter, defendant No.2 learned that in collusion with the plaintiff, the Agreement of sale is created and the same is not sustainable. Defendant No.2 claimed to be a bonafide purchaser. Defendant No.3 sailed along with defendant No.2 and claimed to be bonafide purchaser from defendant No.2. 8. On the basis of rival pleadings, the learned Judge framed the following three issues for trial : 1) Whether the sale agreement dated 26.07.2008 is true, valid and binding on the defendant No.2? 2) Whether the defendant No.2 is absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed executed by defendant No.1 on 23.04.2009 vide document No. 3398 of 2009? 3) Whether the defendant No.2 in turn sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3 under registered sale deed? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for direction to defendants 1 to 3 to execute registered sale deed in his favour in respect of suit schedule property? 5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 and also sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of D.3 are null and void? 6) To what relief? 9. During trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, witnesses PW1 and PW2 were examined and got marked Ex.A1 to A12. Defendant No.2 examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 and B2. Upon examining both the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by defendant Nos.2 and 3. Contentions of the appellants/defendant Nos.2 and 3: 10. The learned counsel for defendant Nos.2 and 3 in grounds of appeal contended that the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and that the plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands. The learned Judge failed to take into consideration the legal notice Ex.A3, wherein, defendant No.1 demanded the plaintiff to return back blank signed stamp papers and cheques deposited with him for obtaining loan. There is an erroneous finding on the part of the learned Judge about defendant Nos.2 and 3 admitting the signatures of defendant No.1 on Ex.A1 Agreement of sale dated 26.07.2008. There is an erroneous finding on the part of the learned Judge about defendant Nos.2 and 3 admitting the signatures of defendant No.1 on Ex.A1 Agreement of sale dated 26.07.2008. There is a further erroneous finding that defendant Nos.2 and 3 failed to adduce evidence to prove existence of a loan transaction between them and plaintiff. It is alleged that the plaintiff claimed to be an agriculturist and not involved in money lending business but the same is proven to be false by the information secured under RTI from GHMC. There is an erroneous finding that Ex.A1 is not a forged or tampered document and that it is a genuine Agreement of sale. Except pleading about the readiness and willingness, there is no credible evidence on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. There is an erroneous finding that no borrower will deposit title deeds while taking loan that too without any proof of obtaining loan. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants during arguments vehemently emphasized that there was no evidence adduced by the plaintiff to prove his readiness and willingness to perform the contract. In that regard, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in K.S.Vidyanadam and others vs. Vairavan, (1997) 3 SCC 1 , Alagammal and others vs. Ganesan and another , [ (2024) 1 SCR 374 ] and C.S.Venkatesh vs. A.S.C.Murthy (D) by LRs and others , [ (2020) 3 SCC 280 ] Contentions of respondent No.1/plaintiff: 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff supported the decree and judgment passed by the learned Judge alleging that the findings are based on correct appreciation of facts and application of law. The learned counsel emphasized that the total sale consideration for purchase of suit schedule property was Rs.11,00,000/-, out of which, Rs.10,00,000/- has been paid on the date of execution of Agreement of sale and the balance sale consideration is only Rs.1,00,000/- which is less than 10% of the total sale consideration. The plaintiff who has paid Rs.10,00,000/- was always ready to pay the remaining Rs.1,00,000/- but it is the defendant No.1 who reneged from performing his part of the contract. The plaintiff who has paid Rs.10,00,000/- was always ready to pay the remaining Rs.1,00,000/- but it is the defendant No.1 who reneged from performing his part of the contract. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ahmadasahab Abdul Mulla (D) by proposed LRs vs. Bibijan and others , [ (2009) 5 SCC 462 ] and R. Lakshmikantham vs. Devaraji , [ (2019) 8 SCC 62 ] Analysis of the Court: 13. The main ground raised for challenging the judgment and decree of the learned Judge is lack of proof of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff in performing his part of the contract. In that regard, defendant Nos.2 and 3’s reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in K.S.Vidyanadam (supra) cannot be taken into consideration as the facts of the said case show that there was complete inaction on the part of the plaintiff in payment of money for a period of 2½ years after making a payment of small amount of money i.e. Rs.5,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.16,000/-. In the instant case, the reverse is true i.e. the plaintiff herein has paid more than 90% of the sale consideration i.e. Rs.10,00,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.11,00,000/-. Therefore, K.S.Vidyanadam (supra) judgment does not come to the aid of the defendant Nos.2 and 3. Similarly, in the judgment of Alagammal and others (supra) , the Agreement of sale was entered on 22.11.1990 for a sale consideration of Rs.21,000/- and advance amount of Rs.3,000/- was paid. The remaining amount of Rs.18,000/- was to be paid in six months. However, when there was no payment, after a period of seven years, the vendor sold the property to third party. In that case too, the amount paid is only about 14% of the total sale consideration. Also, the time was essence of the contract in Alagammal and others (supra) . Whereas, there is no such time stipulated in the Agreement of sale of the present case. 14. Further, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in C.S.Venkatesh (supra) interprets the words ‘ready’ and ‘willing’ as the preparedness to carry out obligation under the contract to logical end depend on performance. Whereas, there is no such time stipulated in the Agreement of sale of the present case. 14. Further, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in C.S.Venkatesh (supra) interprets the words ‘ready’ and ‘willing’ as the preparedness to carry out obligation under the contract to logical end depend on performance. The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant relief of performance and in case, the plaintiff fails to prove the same, he is not entitled to any relief. Whereas, in this case, there is no proof to show that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that by virtue of the fact that the plaintiff had already paid more than 90% of the sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-, he was ready and willing to pay the remaining sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. 16. A person who paid substantial amount of the sale consideration cannot be expected to be not ready for paying a small fraction of the balance sale consideration and therefore, the learned Judge made no error in holding that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 17. The next ground raised by defendant Nos.2 and 3 is that the plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing that he is a money lender. To prove said fact, they relied upon Ex.B1-Information given by the Deputy Commissioner, Patancheru and GHMC, dated 13.07.2018. The said document was not considered by the learned Judge as the author of the document was not examined. As per the established legal precedents, marking of the document as an exhibit is not sufficient to prove the contents. 18. The author of a document has to be examined to prove the genuineness of its contents. In the absence of failure to examine the author of Ex.B1, no fault can be found on the part of the learned Judge for not considering Ex.B1-Information given by the Dy. Commissioner, Patancheru and GHMC dated 13.07.2018. 19. Assuming for a moment that the plaintiff is indeed engaged in money lending business, in the absence of any document, loan transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 cannot be believed. Commissioner, Patancheru and GHMC dated 13.07.2018. 19. Assuming for a moment that the plaintiff is indeed engaged in money lending business, in the absence of any document, loan transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 cannot be believed. The plaintiff’s role in creating Ex.A1 Agreement of sale on the basis of blank signed papers has to be proven by defendant Nos.2 and 3 with credible evidence. In the absence of said evidence, no malafide can be attributed to the plaintiff. 20. The next ground raised by defendant Nos.2 and 3 is that the learned Judge has not taken into consideration the legal notice dated 13.04.2010 under Ex.A3, whereby, defendant No.1 had demanded the plaintiff to return the blank signed papers and cheques obtained by him with respect to hand loan, is a matter that needs to be examined. 21. Ex.A1 Agreement of sale/ExA1 was entered on 26.07.2008 and defendant No.1 had sent legal notice/Ex.A3 on 13.04.2010. In the interim, defendant No.1 executed Ex.A7 registered sale deed vide document bearing No.3398 of 2009, dated 23.04.2009 in favour of defendant No.2, who in turn executed Ex.A8 registered sale deed vide document bearing No.9971 of 2009, dated 05.11.2009 in favour of defendant No.3. The conduct of defendant No.1 shows that he entered into an Agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 26.07.2008, alienated the property in favour of defendant No.2 on 23.04.2009 and after a lapse of (1) year (3) months, got a false legal notice issued under Ex.A3 to the plaintiff. It appears that only to cover up his misconduct of selling the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice alleging loan transaction without any proof. In the absence of any documentary evidence, much credence cannot be given to Ex.A3 legal notice dated 13.04.2010. 22. There is an issue raised by defendant Nos.2 and 3 about the admission of signatures of defendant No.1 on Ex.A1. In this regard, no fault can be found on the part of the learned Judge as the defendants themselves in their written statement have admitted the Agreement of sale containing the signatures of defendant No.1 though the said signatures are alleged to have been taken on blank papers. In this regard, no fault can be found on the part of the learned Judge as the defendants themselves in their written statement have admitted the Agreement of sale containing the signatures of defendant No.1 though the said signatures are alleged to have been taken on blank papers. The case of defendants as per Ex.A3 legal notice is that there was a loan transaction between defendant No.1 and plaintiff for lending an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and in that context, the plaintiff obtained blank signed papers and promissory note. It is their further case that the said blank papers were used for preparing the Agreement of sale by the plaintiff. Once the pleadings have an admission about the genuineness of the signature, the same cannot be disputed at appeal stage. 23. Coming to the aspect of proof of Ex.A1/Agreement of sale, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 to prove the contents of Ex.A1. Further, the plaintiff examined PW2/Mohd. Mahmood Ali, who signed on the Agreement of sale as a witness. Once the plaintiff has discharged his burden of proof to prove the contents of Ex.A1/Agreement of sale, the onus of proof then shifts to the defendants to disprove the same. Except for the oral evidence of defendant No.2 as DW1 who is not a signatory to Ex.A1, no evidence is produced to disprove the contents of Ex.A1. At a minimum, defendant Nos.2 and 3 could have examined the legal representatives of defendant No.1 i.e. defendant Nos.4 to 6 or other witness to Ex.A1 in support of their pleading that blank signed papers were given to the plaintiff in a loan transaction and that no such alleged Agreement of sale took place under Ex.A1. Even the defendant Nos.4 to 6 remained ex-parte and did not contest the suit. Hence, the evidence of DW1 who is not having personal knowledge about Ex.A1 Agreement of sale is not a competent witness to depose about the same. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to find fault with the finding given by the learned Judge about there being no tamper of Ex.A1 Agreement of sale. 24. Lastly, the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred by the learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff in Ahmadasahab Abdul Mulla (D) by proposed LRs (supra) and R. Lakshmikantham (supra) , are about limitation period for specific performance. 24. Lastly, the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred by the learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff in Ahmadasahab Abdul Mulla (D) by proposed LRs (supra) and R. Lakshmikantham (supra) , are about limitation period for specific performance. The said judgments are about the time from which the limitation begins to run in a suit for specific performance i.e. when a date is fixed ‘from said date’ and when there is no date, ‘when the plaintiff has noticed that performance is refused’. In the instant case, the plaintiff had noticed about the refusal to perform the Agreement of sale upon receipt of Ex.A3 legal notice dated 13.04.2010. Since the Agreement of sale/Ex.A1 is dated 26.07.2008, even if the limitation period is taken three years, the said limitation begins on 13.04.2010 and the suit is filed in the year 2011. Therefore, there is no issue of limitation in filing the suit. 25. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, dated 19.09.2019 in O.S.No.55 of 2011. As such, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. 26. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.