date. In the present case, out of the total sale consideration of 5,60,000/-, only a sum of 1 lakh has been paid i.e. the sale consideration which is paid is only around 17% or so. In my opinion, by mere payment of 17% of the sale consideration, it cannot be said that the respondent/plaintiff has made out a case for grant of discretionary relief of specific performance. The second reason for the respondent/plaintiff not being entitled to specific performance is that in the only legal notice dated 18.12.2007, Ex.PW1/2 issued on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, there was no claim seeking specific performance, but the respondent/plaintiff only sought return of double the amount of earnest money alongwith interest. Obviously, the respondent/plaintiff himself, and who is a property dealer, only wanted double the amount of earnest money paid and not specific performance of the contract. As already stated, the respondent/plaintiff had failed to prove his financial capacity and when we take this fact with averment of only seeking return of money and not specific performance, in my opinion, the respondent/plaintiff cannot be held entitled to specific performance. This aspect also has to be considered with the issue of readiness and willingness inasmuch as readiness and willingness has to be continuous for seeking specific performance and once the respondent/plaintiff by issuing his legal notice dated 18.12.2007, Ex.PW1/2 only asked for payment of double the
