the plaintiff would claim that he had been ready and willing to pay the balance sum to the defendants right from the inception, however, with reference to the abovesaid case of the plaintiff other than his interested Ipse dixit testimony, there is no other valid material forthcoming on the part of the plaintiff. The case putforth by the plaintiff that due to harvest and cultivation, the defendants had been postponing the execution of the sale deed, as such, cannot be believed. If according to the plaintiff, he had been always ready and willing to pay the balance sum and get the sale deed executed from the inception of the sale agreement and the defendants had been avoiding the same one way or the other, nothing prevented the plaintiff from putting his readiness and willingness in writing at the earliest point of time and calling upon the defendants to receive the balance sum and execute the sale deed. On the other hand, the case of the plaintiff is that he had issued the lawyer's notice on 06.12.1999 nearly at the fag end of three years fixed, calling upon the defendants to receive the balance sum and execute the sale deed. Therefore from 10.12.1996 till 05.12.1999, absolutely there is no proof on the part of the plaintiff evidencing his readiness and willingness to pay the balance sum and get the sale deed executed. In such view of the matter, the case projected by the plaintiff that he has been ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract since the execution of the sale agreement, as such, falls to the ground and rightly disbelieved by the Courts below. In addition to that, when according to the plaintiff, the defendant had not responded positively to the legal notice sent by him, atleast immediately thereafter, the plaintiff would have endeavored to institute the suit against the defendants as per law. On the other hand, it is found that the plaintiff is found to have laid the present suit only on 07.11.2000 nearly one year after the issuance of the legal notice dated 06.12.1999. The abovesaid conduct of the plaintiff would speak volumes of his readiness and willingness in obtaining the sale deed from the defendants and as rightly contended by the defendants' counsel, inasmuch as, the plaintiff had been not ready and willing to perform his part of his contract from the beginning, it is seen that the plaintiff had been taking his own time in moving ahead for the enforcement of the sale agreement and the factum of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff seeking the equitable and discretionary relief of specific performance being the sine qua non for obtaining the said relief, the abovesaid factor being blatantly and conspicuously absent in the present case, in such view of the matter, as determined by the Courts below, on the abovesaid ground alone, the plaintiff's suit for the relief of specific performance cannot be acceded to.
