JUDGMENT : Jyoti Mulimani, J. Sri. Sharan B. Tadahal, counsel for the appellant, has appeared in person. Though the appeal is listed today for orders regarding a hearing-interlocutory application, with the consent of counsel for the appellant, it is heard. Sri.A.Venugopal - the original respondent died on 16.08.2019. Notice to the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent was ordered on 01.10.2024. A perusal of the office note depicts that the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent are served and unrepresented. They have neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 2. This is an appeal from the Court of XXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-36). 3. For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The plaint averments are these: The defendant is the rightful owner and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, having acquired the same under the Partition Deed dated 28.09.2009. The defendant needed money; hence, he entered into an agreement for sale with the plaintiff on 14.07.2014 and agreed to sell the property for a sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- and received an advance sale consideration of Rs.9,50,000/- under the agreement for sale. The defendant agreed to execute the sale deed within eleven months from the date of the Agreement for sale, and at the same time, the plaintiff agreed to pay the rest of the sale consideration amount of Rs.50,000/- Subsequently, when eleven months of stipulated time were over, the plaintiff followed up with the defendant daily to complete the sale transaction and was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.50,000/- as per the Agreement for sale dated 14.07.2014. It is also said that the plaintiff after having tried all the means of contact for the defendant to complete the sale transaction was left with no option but to send the defendant a legal notice and the same came to be sent to the defendant on 06.07.2017 and the same was also received by the defendant via RPAD and Speed post. In the legal notice, the plaintiff expressed his desire/willingness to complete the sale transaction, though there was already a substantial amount of delay from the defendant's side. In the legal notice, the plaintiff expressed his desire/willingness to complete the sale transaction, though there was already a substantial amount of delay from the defendant's side. The defendant did not bother to tender any reply to the said legal notice, leaving the plaintiff no option but to approach the Court. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of Specific Performance. After registration of the suit, a summons was issued to the defendant; however, it was returned with the notation "No such person. Returned". Thereafter, the plaintiff was constrained to take out notice by way of substituted service through paper publication. The defendant did not appear before the Court; hence, he was placed ex-parte vide order dated 31.07.2018 since service of summons through paper publication held sufficient. The Trial Court framed issues. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked four documents. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 12.09.2018 dismissed the suit. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal under Section 96 of CPC. 5. Sri.Sharan B.Tadahal, counsel for the appellant, submits that the Judgment of the Trial Court is opposed to law and contrary to the oral and documentary evidence on record. Next, he submits that the Trial Court misread the pleadings and recitals of the registered agreement for sale dated 14.07.2014, agreed between the plaintiff and defendant, wherein it was stipulated that time was the essence of the contract. A further submission is made that the observation of the Trial Court that the plaintiff could have easily paid the remaining amount of the sale consideration and could have had the sale deed well in time is untenable. Counsel vehemently contended that the findings of the Trial Court with regard to the signature on the agreement for sale and on the postal acknowledgement are totally uncalled for, as the Trial Court has stated that the signature on the Agreement for sale and the postal acknowledgement for having received the legal notice are different. Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the Judgment of the Trial Court is untenable and is liable to be set aside. Counsel, therefore, submits that the appeal may be allowed and the plaintiff's suit may be decreed. Heard the argument and perused the appeal papers and the records with care. 6. Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the Judgment of the Trial Court is untenable and is liable to be set aside. Counsel, therefore, submits that the appeal may be allowed and the plaintiff's suit may be decreed. Heard the argument and perused the appeal papers and the records with care. 6. The short point that requires consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Specific Performance. 7. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. The issue revolves around the decline to grant the relief of specific performance. In this case, the plaintiff sued to enforce the specific performance of a Contract to execute a conveyance in respect of the suit property. In this appeal, the main contention on behalf of the plaintiff relates to the factum of readiness and willingness. A good deal of argument is canvassed about ready and willing. The law is well-settled that the plaintiff must aver as well as prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the obligation. The controversy revolves around readiness and willingness; hence, let us quickly glance at the distinction between the two. The distinction between readiness and willingness is that the former has reference to financial capacity, and the latter to the conduct of the plaintiff wanting specific performance. While ‘willingness’ is merely a mental process, ‘readiness’ is something to do with translating that will into action and is preceded by the necessary preparation of being in a position to be ready. In other words, while ‘willingness’ may be something to do mainly with a person’s mental process to do an act, the readiness implies the proximity of such willingness and its ultimate physical manifestation. Readiness must, in all cases, be backed by willingness, and its imminent physical action is demonstrated when it is about to be put into action. Reverting to the facts of the case, the time was the essence of the contract and the plaintiff, after the completion of eleven months of stipulated time, followed up with the defendant almost daily to complete the sale transaction. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff specifically contended that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and pay the balance consideration. Even in this Court, he has adhered to the said contention. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff specifically contended that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and pay the balance consideration. Even in this Court, he has adhered to the said contention. The onus of proof of being ready and willing to perform his part of the contract from the date of the contract to the date of filing of the suit is on the plaintiff. An averment that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract is sufficient compliance with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to further aver that he had made a demand upon the defendant to execute the sale deed on a particular date. Nor is it necessary that the plaintiff must have averred his readiness and willingness in the notice, if he has sent one. Readiness and willingness of a person seeking performance, in a case where time is provided for performance, means that the person claiming performance has kept the contract subsisting with preparedness to fulfil their obligations, and accepts performance when the time for performance arrives. In the present case, time was the essence of the contract. Eleven months were fixed for the completion of the contract. There was no defence by the defendants; however, the Trial Court has unnecessarily taken pains to conclude that the plaintiff could have paid the balance amount, and there was a mismatch of the signature of the defendant on Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.4. This is untenable in law. What was required to be considered in a suit for specific performance is whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The agreement for sale is dated 14.07.2014, and time was the essence of the contract, and the plaintiff has proved the agreement for sale. Taking note of the oral and documentary evidence, it can be safely held that the plaintiff has proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, as well as the default committed by the defendant despite the requests and demands, and issuance of legal notice for the execution of the sale deed. Hence, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff must succeed. 8. The Judgment dated 12.09.2018 passed by the XXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-36) in O.S.No.7919/2017 is set aside. Hence, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff must succeed. 8. The Judgment dated 12.09.2018 passed by the XXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-36) in O.S.No.7919/2017 is set aside. The plaintiff's suit is decreed with costs throughout. The defendants are hereby directed to execute the sale deed on receiving the balance consideration of Rs.50,000/- within two months from the date of this order, failing which the plaintiff to secure the sale deed through the Court. The Registry concerned is hereby directed to draw the decree accordingly. 9. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is allowed Because of the disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.