82. Section 16(c) of the Act of 1963 requires that a plaintiff must both plead and prove that he has either performed, or has always been ready and willing to perform, the essential terms of the contract incumbent upon him. It is now a settled law that a party seeking enforcement of a contract must establish that all conditions precedent have been satisfied, and that he has either discharged or stood prepared and willing to discharge his obligations under the contract. The expressions “ready” and “willing” under Section 16(c) carry distinct connotations. In JP Builders v. A. Ramadas Rao, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 429, this Court clarified this distinction, holding that “readiness” relates to the plaintiff’s capacity to perform the contract, including his financial ability to pay the consideration, whereas “willingness” is demonstrated through the plaintiff’s conduct, evidencing his genuine intent to perform the contract. The relevant observation is as under:

“22. The words “ready” and “willing” imply that the person was prepared to carry out the terms of the contract. The distinction between “readiness” and “willingness” is that the former refers to financial capacity and the latter to the conduct of the plaintiff wanting performance. Generally, readiness is backed by willingness.

……

83. Further, in the case of Satya Jain v. Anis Ahmed Rushdie, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 131, this Court had further observed that the test of readiness and willingness would depend on the overall conduct of the plaintiff both prior to and subsequent to the filing of the suit for specific performance and such conduct of the plaintiff has to be viewed in light of the conduct of the defendant….