the Appellate Court erroneously found fault with the failure of the first defendant to call upon the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed. He submitted that there are no averments of readiness and willingness in the plaint as required under section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1963). He submitted that there is no evidence of readiness and willingness. He pointed out that the case of the first defendant is that the amounts which are set out in the agreement have not been received by the first defendant. He submitted that the argument of lis pendens will have no application as the suit property is purchased by the second defendant is not only from the first defendant but also from his sisters. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Motilal Jain vs. Ramdasi Devi and others [2000(6) SCC 420]. He relied upon the relevant portion of this judgment and submitted that in the facts of this case, it was inequitable to grant relief of specific performance. He also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ganpat Sawant vs. Balkrishna Shirsat (1985 Mh.L.J. 84). He submitted that in the present case, the cosharers of the first defendant are not parties to the agreement for sale and therefore the said agreement for sale cannot be enforced against the shares of the cosharers. He, therefore, submitted that the findings of the Courts below are perverse and need interference at the hands of this Court. He also pointed out letter dated 30th June 2012 addressed by the respondent to the Hon'ble Chief Justice and other Judges of this Court, in which he has threatened to commit suicide as the second appeal has not been heard. I have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the
