S.K. Ray, J. - (1.)THIS is a Plaintiff's second appeal from the reversing decision of the Subordinate Judge of Puri in a suit for specific performance of contract.
(2.)THE Plaintiff being in need of money sold the suit property to the Defendant under a registered sale deed dated 8 -7.1964 for a consideration of Rs. 1500/ - and gave delivery of possession of the same to him. Contemporaneously, the vendee entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff, vendor, to recover the suit property to the Plaintiff for the same consideration of Rs. 1500/ - within two years therefrom, that is, on or before 8.7.1966. Pursuant to this agreement of reconveyance the Plaintiff offered money (Rs. 1500/ -) to the Defendant and demanded execution of a sale deed, but the Defendant, on some pretext or other, postponed the execution of the reconveyance deed and finally on 7.7.1966 refused performance of his part of the contract by accepting the money tendered and executing a sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit on 8.7.1966, immediately after expiry of the stipulation period Jar reconveyance. This is the Plaintiff's case.
The Defendant in his written statement admitted to have executed the agreement for reconveyance for a consideration of Rs. 1500/., but denied the plaint allegations that the Plaintiff had approached him with the stipulated consideration amount several times and had requested him to reconvey the property after receiving the consideration of Rs. 1500/ - from her.

(3.)THE trial Court decreed the suit holding that the Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract at least by 6.7.1966, if not earlier, but the Defendant refused to carry out his part of the contract.
The lower appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial Court on the sale ground that the Plaintiff did neither make any allegation in the plaint nor proved that she was continuously ready and willing to perform her part of the contract as required by Section 16, Clause (c) read with Explanations (i) and (ii) of the Specify Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). On perusing paragraphs 4 and 6 of the plaint and oral evidence adduced by the Plaintiff, he concluded that the Plaintiff' has not specifically pleaded that she was 'continuously ready and willing to perform her part of the contract from the date of contract to the time of hearing of the suit', although be found that the trial Court did not examine the evidence and give a clear and definite finding as to whether the Plaintiff was continuously ready and willing to perform her part of the contract from the date of contract till the date of hearing but seemed to have worked under the impression that even least minute offer of the money would fulfil the requirements of the law and, accordingly, held that it was amply borne out by the proved facts and circumstances that the Defendant was unwilling to abide by the terms of the contract though the Plaintiff was willing to perform her part by 8 -7 -1966 at the latest, if not earlier. He further found on an analysis of oral testimony adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff that till two months before the expiry of the stipulated period of two years: she was not in a position t(;) offer Rs. 1500} - to the Defendant and that clearly indicated that the Plaintiff was not ready with money at least for a period of one year and ten months after the date of the contract, that is 8 -7 -1964, and that, as such, it cannot be said that she was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract from the date of contract till the date of hearing.