13.In this case, admittedly, the suit notice itself came to be issued only on 20.05.1991, that too, on the deceased defendant in whose name the property got devolved after the death of the said Chakkarai Reddi. Therefore, it is evident that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract either within the time stipulated therein or even thereafter. He has chosen to file the suit only on 10.06.1991. Therefore, I find that the trial court has rightly refused the relief of specific performance, which is a discretionary relief, need not necessarily be granted, even assuming that the plaintiff has made out a case. In this case, the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is totally absent. The oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 alone cannot be taken into consideration in the absence of any documentary evidence to show the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff, when admittedly the very suit notice itself came to be issued after nearly three years from the date of the agreement. Further, it is admitted by the plaintiff in the plaint that the plaintiff can exercise the right to move a court of law for the specific performance of the agreement of sale if the said Chakkarai Reddi failed to execute the sale deed by the appointed date i.e.,20.05.1988. It is also admitted by the plaintiff in the plaint that ever since the date of agreement of sale, he was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and was urging the said Chakkarai Reddi to execute the sale deed which he wantonly postponed. The plaintiff also admitted the knowledge of the death of the Chakkarai Reddi on 15.06.1990. Therefore, it is evident from the plaint averment itself that the said Chakkarai Reddi failed or refused to perform his part of the obligation under the contract either within the time stipulated in the agreement or even thereafter till his death. When that being the admitted facts by the plaintiff himself, the failure on the part of the plaintiff to file a suit immediately by pleading and establishing his readiness and willingness would undoubtedly show that the plaintiff was, in fact, not at all ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Therefore, I find the rejection of the relief of specific performance by the trial court is just and proper, which the lower appellate court ought not to have granted. The lower appellate court failed to consider all these aspects and came to an erroneous conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance.
