IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.501 OF 2007. APPEAL NO.501 OF 2007. APPEAL NO.501 OF 2007. Kalawati Krishna Shinde ...Appellant Versus. Tukaram Shankar Pawar ...Respondent Shri R.M.Haridas for the Appellant. Shri Milind Deshmukh for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 13th February, 2008. : 13th February, 2008. : 13th February, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard advocates appearing for the parties. The Second Appeal is by the original defendant who has suffered a decree for specific performance of Agreement for Sale dated 16th December, 1986. The decree for specific performance passed by the trial Court has been confirmed by the first Appellate Court. 2. The submission of the learned advocate for the appellant is that in the plaint there are no specific averments regarding the readiness and willingness as contemplated under section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The second submission is that alongwith the suit agreement, another agreement was executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent’s brother Dattu. It is submitted that Sale Deed was executed by the appellant in favour of said Dattu on the basis of the said Agreement and at that time a stamp paper was purchased by the appellant to execute conveyance in : 2 : 2 : 2 : terms of the suit agreement. He submitted that at that time the respondent did not show willingness to get the conveyance executed as he was not in a position to pay the balance consideration. Inviting my attention to the averments made in the plaint he submitted that the respondents have specifically referred to notice dated 05th December, 1988 issued by the appellant and before instituting the suit in September 1989, the respondent did not issue him notice. 3. The learned advocate for the respondent submitted that there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. Relying upon certain decisions of the Apex Court he submitted that there were material averments in the plaint to show readiness and willingness and a finding on this aspect by both the courts is in favour of the respondents. He submitted that there is no merit in the Second Appeal. 4. I have considered the submissions. I have perused the plaint. The suit agreement is of 16th December, 1986. Out of agreed consideration of Rs.7,000/- the finding is that a sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid by the respondent and what remained payable was the amount which was to be paid at the time of execution of conveyance. : 3 : 3 : 3 : 5. Perusal of the averments made in the plaint show that on 24th November, 1988 the respondent offered a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the appellant and called upon the appellant to execute the Sale Deed. Though the respondent may not have used the specific words used in the Statute, if the material averments are considered alongwith conduct of the parties it is very difficult to find fault with the findings of fact recorded by the courts below on the issue of readiness and willingness. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that readiness and willingness cannot be treated as a straight jacket formula and the said issue has to be determined from the entirety of facts and circumstaqnces relevant to the intention and the conduct of the party concerned. 6. In the present case, the finding is that substantial part of the consideration was already paid by the respondent to the appellant and the balance amount was payable at the time of execution of conveyance. 7. No substantial question of law arises. In view of concurrent findings of fact, Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs. Judge. Judge. Judge.