By the present second appeal, the appellants are challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge 1, Pandharkawada, dated 11/03/2013.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal can be summarized as follows:-

The appellants herein filed suit for specific performance of contract of sale with an alternative prayer of refund of the earnest money under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. The subject matter of the proceedings was the lands having area 3 acres and 23 gunthas from Survey No. 14/1 and 11 acres 17 gunthas from Survey No. 14/2 of village Gaurala, Tahsil Moregaon, District Yavatmal. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendants agreed to sale the suit property to the original plaintiff Champatrao for a total consideration of Rs.67,000/-. On the day of the agreement, plaintiff Champatrao paid Rs.10,000/- towards earnest money. Sale-Deed was to be executed on 15/04/1982. It was the further case of the plaintiff that Rs.30,000/- were to be paid on 31/21/1981 and as such the original plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.24,000/- in cash and issued three cheques of Rs.2,000/- each. As it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the defendants were in arrears of Rs.1,651.76 ps. towards charges of the State Electricity Board and as those charges were not paid, the electricity supply was disconnected. 1t also came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that as some house taxes were also due against the defendants, the plaintiff intimated his bank for stop of payment. Out of the three cheques issued by the plaintiff, two cheques were encashed. It was the case of the plaintiff that the balance consideration was to the tune of Rs.27,000/- and the defendants had agreed to execute the sale-deed on or before 15/04/1992 in discharge of their liability. It was further the case of the plaintiff that the suit lands were mortgaged by defendants with State Bank of India and the defendants were having an outstanding liability of Rs.14,000/-. The plaintiff submitted that the defendants agreed to him to clear encumbrances before execution of the sale-deed. The plaintiff called upon the defendants by issuing notice dated 26/04/1982 to discharge their liabilities. In reply dated 17/01/1983, the defendants agreed to discharge their liability before execution of the sale-deed and asked him to remain present in the Office of Sub-Registrar on 09/02/1983. But till 09/02/1983, the defendants failed to discharge their liability. Again a notice dated 22/04/1986 was issued calling upon the defendants to discharge their liability, but in spite of an oral assurance, the liability was not discharged by the defendants. It was further the case of the plaintiff that in the meantime, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that a civil suit namely R.C.S. No.107/1983 before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Wani was decreed against the defendants and on the basis of the decree, execution petition bearing No.56/1985 was preferred and in the said execution proceedings the suit fields were attached. The plaintiff, therefore, filed M.J.C. No. 5/1985 raising an objection. The plaintiff by participating in the proceedings, expressed his readiness and willingness to purchase the suit property, but the defendants were reluctant to discharge their liability. The plaintiff had also filed a pursis at Exh.33 in the execution proceedings and called upon the defendants to remain present before the Sub-Registrar, Wani on 28/01/1989 and though the plaintiff by remaining present there with the stamps of Rs.2,350/-, the defendants failed to execute the sale-deed. On these grounds, the suit was filed.

The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing their written statement and counter claim. It was the case of the defendants that the contract between the parties was for 3 acres and 23 gunthas of land from Survey No.14/1 with well and a constructed farm house. As per the defendants, the total land was approximately 15