1. This is a plaintiff's appeal.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, are as follows:

The plaintiff is the resident of Goa while the defendant No.1 is a builder in Goa. The defendant No.1 has constructed a building known as Darshan Apartment at Miramar, Panaji, Goa. The plaintiff was interested in purchasing a flat in the said building known as Darshan Apartment. The plaintiff, therefore, approached the defendant No.1 for purchasing the flat. The agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 for sale of flat bearing No.2/1 to the plaintiff. On 16.04.1983, the defendant No.1 gave to the plaintiff the keys of the flat No.2/1. On that day, the plaintiff could not check up whether the keys that were handed over to him, were in respect of the flat which was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff. The plaintiff could not do so because of the fact that he was required to immediately leave for Bombay for proceeding to Abu Dhabi. It is the contention of the plaintiff that a plan was annexed to the said agreement, in which the flat was demarcated in the plan. It is further contention of the plaintiff that the flat which he had agreed to purchase, was one which lies to the right hand side on the second floor after climbing up the staircase. The plaintiff submits that after a month or so, he came back from Abu Dhabi to Goa. When he went to see the flat, he found that the some flats were not at all numbered and only one flat was already occupied. The plaintiff tried the keys in the flat which he had agreed to purchase, but could not open it. On the other hand, with those keys, he could open the flat which was in the opposite direction. The plaintiff submits that the defendant deliberately gave wrong keys to the plaintiff and in order to earn money out of sale of the flat which was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 gave a wrong flat to the plaintiff. Further the plaintiff submits that his brother-in-law had kept certain furnitures in the flat. His brother-in-law did not know exactly which flat has been purchased by the plaintiff. The plaintiff submits that the defendant has no right to deprive him of the flat which was agreed to be sold to him. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the said flat has been handed over by the defendant No.1 to defendant No.2. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for decree that he is entitled to flat which is now numbered as 2/3, which lies to the right hand side on the second floor after climbing up the staircase. The plaintiff had also prayed for damages to the extent of 39,000/-since the plaintiff was required to have another flat on lease.

3. The defendant No.1 resisted the suit by filing written statement and admits that he had agreed to sale one flat to the plaintiff. He does not dispute that flat No.2/1 was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff. The defendant submits that the possession of this flat has already been handed over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has passed a possession receipt and has accepted the keys. Further it is contended that the plaintiff has kept his belongings in the said flat. The defendant submits that flat No.2/3 which is in possession of the defendant No.2 was never agreed to be sold to the plaintiff. He submits that the plaintiff is taking disadvantage of the fact that in the map attached with the agreement, a wrong flat has been demarcated. The plaintiff had given instructions to the defendant to make certain special amenities available to him in the said flat. Accordingly, the defendant submits that the defendant had provided a European type W.C., concealed wiring, provision for a heater and flooring of the flat to be in tune with the flooring of the balcony. The defendant submits that all these amenities, according to the plaintiff's requirements, were provided. Further the defendant's contention is that the plaintiff had approached the defendant through one of the partners of the defendant namely Shri Gaunekar. He submit