objection for considering the matter on merits. It is true that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the fourth defendant entered into on 04.12.2003. It was a registered agreement. A sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid as advance and time for performance was fixed as one year. The total sale consideration was fixed as Rs.3,25,000/-. After the suit was filed, the fourth defendant not only accepted the agreement but undertook to execute the sale deed. There upon, the trial court gave a direction that the plaintiff should deposit a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The plaintiff was to deposit the said amount on or before 20.12.2007. Even though the defendant came forward to conclude the sale transaction and the Court also gave a specific direction to the plaintiff to deposit the balance amount, the plaintiff did not do so. He deposited the amount only on 07.03.2008. This single circumstance was sufficient to show that the plaintiff was not 'always ready'. The requirement contemplated under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act was clearly not fulfilled in this case and that is why, the trail court rightly non-suited the plaintiff. Without appreciating this basic aspect, the first appellant court erroneously decreed the suit. By his own showing, the plaintiff had dis-entitled himself to the relief of specific performance. I therefore answer the substantial question of law in favour of the appellants.
