Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the findings of the trial Court on the question of readiness and willingness on the part of plaintiff is perverse; hence, liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the Court below failed to appreciate that after execution of the agreement to sell, the defendant No.1 with an ill- intention to avoid the execution of sale deed has caused a notice published in Hindi daily through his son Vijay and married daughters, Kaushalya Bai and Sunita Bai. A notice was sent by the plaintiff through an advocate against such paper publication and denied the alleged claims & had called upon the defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed as the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract with the payment of remaining amount of consideration but, the defendant No.1 did not turn up and failed to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the obligation under agreement to sell dated 15/05/2006 for execution of sale deed. Per contra, learned senior counsel contends that the findings of the trial Court on issue Nos.3(a) and 4 in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the judgment are based on critical evaluation of evidence placed on record. The findings are impregnable. There was no readiness and willingness on the part of plaintiff; hence, not entitled for discretionary relief under section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. The conclusions are impeccable. Hence, no interference is warranted. Learned senior counsel referred to clause (6) of the agreement to sell dated 15/05/2006 where under it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 that on or before 02/112006, the entire remaining sale consideration amount will be paid and the sale deed to be executed after payment of full consideration amount and under clause (10) of the agreement, there is a stipulation that if second party did not get the sale deed executed within the fixed date then the first party (Def. 1) is free to forfeit the earnest money and sell the suit property in favour of any one. Learned senior counsel submits that the time was essence of the contract of sale. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek specific performance of agreement to sell. To bolster his submission, learned Sr. counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of I.S.Sikandar Vs. K. Subramani (2013) 15 SCC 27. Para 40 is quoted below: