37.Be that as such, the fact remains that the plaintiff has sent the legal notice (Ex.A3) only on 13.02.2006, i.e., two months after the expiry of stipulated time, for which, the defendants have sent reply notice on 15.02.2006 (Ex.A4), denying the sale agreement and also stating their nonwillingness to return the advance amount of Rs.6,10,000/-. However, after receipt of the reply notice by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed the present suit only after one year, i.e., on 21.02.2007. Till such time, both the plaintiff as well as the defendants have remained silent for the reasons best known to them. Having known the mind of the defendants vide their reply notice (Ex.A4), what prevented the plaintiff from instituting a suit for specific performance forthwith, when there is a specific clause for suing the defendants, in the sale agreement (Ex.A1) itself, as extracted supra. The plaintiff has not stated any reason for the delay of one year in instituting the suit. The only reason submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the period of limitation is three years, hence, the suit is within limitation period. Such a contention has no legs to stand in the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saradamani Kandappan, Padmakumari and K.S. Vidyanadam (supra). The plaintiff ought to have shown continuous readiness and willingness, which is wanting in the present case on hand. The trial Court, though has framed an issue with regard to the readiness and willingness, has totally ignored the delay of one year by stating that it cannot be a ground to hold that the plaintiff was not ready to fulfill the contract. Such a finding of the trial Court does not merit acceptance. Therefore, this Court finds that the plaintiff has not established his readiness and willingness throughout, so as to entitle him to the relief of specific performance.
