Specific performance requires proof of the exact contract and continuous readiness and willingness to perform.

A suit for specific performance based on an alleged oral reconveyance agreement failed because the plaintiff did not prove a definite contract by convincing evidence. The sale deed reflected an outright sale, the claimed reconveyance covenant was not explained or recorded, and the supporting witnesses were found unreliable. Relief also could not rest on the defendant's alternative agreement because the plaintiff neither accepted that version nor pleaded and proved readiness and willingness to perform it. In specific performance claims, the plaintiff must establish the precise contract sued upon and continuous readiness and willingness; absent those pleadings and proof, the decree could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged oral agreement for reconveyance was proved by convincing evidence so as to sustain a decree for specific performance; (ii) Whether a decree for specific performance could be granted on the basis of the agreement pleaded by the defendant when the plaintiff had not pleaded or proved readiness and willingness to perform that agreement.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged oral agreement for reconveyance was proved by convincing evidence so as to sustain a decree for specific performance.

Analysis: The agreement pleaded by the plaintiff was oral, and the burden of proof lay heavily upon him. The sale deed evidenced an outright sale and did not support the case of a reconveyance agreement. The surrounding circumstances, the absence of any explanation for omitting the alleged covenant from the sale deed, the doubtful character of the subsequent document relied upon, and the interested nature of the principal witnesses all made the plaintiff's version unreliable. A decree for specific performance requires a definite contract proved by convincing evidence, and the evidence adduced fell short of that standard.

Conclusion: The alleged oral agreement was not proved, and the finding was against the plaintiff.

Issue (ii): Whether a decree for specific performance could be granted on the basis of the agreement pleaded by the defendant when the plaintiff had not pleaded or proved readiness and willingness to perform that agreement.

Analysis: The agreement set up by the defendant was a different transaction from the one pleaded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff never accepted that alternative agreement, and he neither amended the plaint nor pleaded that he was ready and willing to perform it. In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must plead the contract sued upon and must also plead and prove readiness and willingness to perform his part. Without those averments, the suit could not be maintained on the basis of the defendant's version.

Conclusion: The decree could not be supported on the defendant's alleged agreement, and that issue was against the plaintiff.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to establish the contract on which the suit was founded, and the decree for specific performance could not stand. The connected appeals were disposed of with one appeal dismissed and the other allowed, resulting in dismissal of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must plead and prove the precise contract sued upon and his continuous readiness and willingness to perform it; relief cannot be granted on a different agreement not accepted by the plaintiff and not established by convincing evidence.

---