H.N. Sarma, J.

1. This is a statutory first appeal preferred by the defendant-appellants in T.S. 16 of 2004, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents by the impugned judgment and order dated 4-1-2005.

2. We have heard Mr. D.R. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the defendant-appellants and Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.

3. The pleaded case of the plaintiff in the suit is that the defendant entered into an agreement on 13-6-2003 for sale of the suit land measuring 1550 sq. ft. responding to 1 ganda 3 kara 101/2 dhurs, according to local measurement, covered by Khatian No. 10978 passed in CS Plot No. 12279, Mouja Agartala sheet No. 14 with two storied building standing thereon. The price of the land was fixed at Rs. 18 lakhs out of which Rs. 5 lakh was paid as earnest money on the date of agreement. It is stipulated in the agreement that, among other things, upon receipt of the remaining consideration on or before 31-10-2003 the sale transaction would be completed and defendant would deliver the vacant possession of the suit land and building to the plaintiff. An amount of Rs. 15,000/- was again received by the defendant No. 1 being additional earnest money and the plaintiff paid Rs. 5,15,001/- in total, to the defendant as earnest money. The first floor and three rooms on the ground floor of the suit building were under occupation of tenants. Three rooms in the ground floor are in occupation of the defendant where they are residing. In the meantime, the plaintiff having repaid the security/advance money to the two tenants in the ground floor they surrendered their possession to the defendants on which the plaintiff requested the defendants to complete the sale transaction on or before 31-10-2003 upon receipt of the remaining amount of consideration money. On 12-10-2003 the plaintiff offered to complete the sale transaction but the defendant proposed to extend the period of agreement up to 31-12-2003 and assured the plaintiff that is tenant in the first floor of the suit building would surrender vacant possession thereof during the period and they would be in a position to complete the sale transaction. The plaintiff having agreed to the proposal the date of transaction was extended up to 31-12-2003 by an oral agreement between the parties. The plaintiff thereafter again met the defendant on 19-12-2003 and requested him to complete the transaction in terms of the agreement but the defendant No. 1 requested the plaintiff to wait up to 15th January, 2004 so that in the meantime, they can make alternative arrangement for their staying. The plaintiff having agreed to the said proposal the agreement was further extended to 15th January, 2004.

4. Thereafter, on 9-1-2004 the plaintiff was served with a notice from the defendant informing him that for his failure to pay the balance of the consideration money within the extended date of agreement i.e. 31-12-2003 the defendants allegedly suffered heavy loss by making payment of security money to the tenants for eviction from the suit land and at the same time the defendants informed the plaintiff that the earnest money paid by him to them was forfeited. Upon receipt of the said notice the plaintiff instituted the suit for specific purpose of the agreement dated 13-6-2003.

5. Upon receipt of summon the defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. In their pleading, the defendants though admitted the agreement but denied the alleged offer made by the plaintiff to pay the balance consideration money and extension of the agreement beyond 31-12-2003. The assertion of giving possession of the three rooms of the ground floor after one month of the agreement was also denied. The defendants pleaded that after execution of the agreement, the defendants issued notice to the tenants to vacate the suit land and the defendants r