8. In every suit for specific performance prior to the amendment of the Specific Relief Act, 1983, it is necessary for the plaintiff to plead and prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract in terms of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. Both the trial Court and the first appellate Court have found that the plaintiff did not possess the requisite funds at that time stipulated for performance of the contract. Indeed, they rely on the testimony of the plaintiff as P.W.1, wherein he would say that he did not possess money, but had borrowed the money from his brother-inlaw. Though the money need not jingle before the Court, yet when the plaintiff created a situation for himself with his statement that he did not possess money, then it is equally important for him to establish that he indeed had mobilised the amounts as he claimed. This plaintiff did not attempt to establish, which got the notice of the Courts below and this Court does not find any need to deviate from the said findings, essentially because it is a finding on mere fact and this Court does not consider that the approach of the Courts below is perverse. Though the substantial questions of law touch upon few aspects other than readiness and willingness necessary for seeking specific performance, yet the plaintiff is ultimately pinned down to his failure to establish the same. This Court cannot overlook it, nor considering some of the substantial questions of law would tilt the
