the Court is under an obligation to frame an issue regarding readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform the terms of the contract. Once that issue is framed, the burden of proving readiness and willingness is on the plaintiff. It is not dependent upon the admission of the defendant either in the written statement or in the evidence. Unless the plaintiff proves to the satisfaction of the Court that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the Court gets no jurisdiction to pass a decree for specific performance. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, that, as there was no serious cross-examination of P.W.1 regarding readiness and willingness, the oral evidence of P.W.1 that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract was sufficient for the trial Court to decree the suit for specific performance is unfounded. The plaintiff has not produced a scrap of paper to show how he propose to raise the balance sale consideration of Rs.65 lakhs, where he has kept that money, is it in any bank or has he formulated a scheme for raising the funds and whether he actually possessed of the said funds. In the absence of such material, which has to be necessarily in the form of documentary evidence, not placed before the Court, the trial Court committed a serious error in holding that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. There is absolutely no discussion in the entire judgment on this aspect and the said finding is not supported or based on any legal evidence on record. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the finding recorded by the trial
