Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.

This appeal suit was filed by the defendants in O.S. No.131 of 1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Ottappalam. The suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of the plaint schedule property was decreed by the Trial Court. Hence this appeal.

2. The parties are referred to herein as the plaintiff and the defendants for the sake of convenience. The plaint schedule property belonging to the defendants having an extent of 2.63 acres is the subject matter of the suit. According to the plaintiff, the defendants agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.3 lakhs. The preliminary talk for the sale of the property was held prior to 2.11.1991 and it was decided to finalise the sale when the 1st defendant would come for leave during March 1992. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant came for leave during March 1992 and the agreement was finalised for sale of the property between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff paid Rs.50.000/- towards advance. It is also alleged in the plaint that the 1st defendant on behalf of the defendants, handed over possession of the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants' younger brother Moideen received the balance consideration of Rs.2.5 lakhs from the plaintiff and thus the entire sale consideration was paid to the defendants. Since the defendants had failed to execute the requisite sale document, a lawyer notice was issued on 2.5.1993. The suit was filed for specific performance of the agreement for sale.

3. In the written statement filed by the defendants, the alleged agreement for sale was totally denied. They have also denied the receipt of the advance amount or the balance sale consideration as alleged by the plaintiff. The alleged handing over of possession claimed by the plaintiff also was denied. In the light of the contentions raised above, the defendants pleaded that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance of the contract for sale.

4. Before the court below. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A14 were marked as documentary evidence. On the side of the defendants, DW.1 was examined and Exts.B1 (a) to B1(c) were marked. Exts.X1 and X2 were also marked as court exhibits. Defendants 1 and 2 did not enter the box and give evidence presumably because they were abroad at the relevant time.

5. Relying on the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the available documentary evidence in support of the case set up by the plaintiff, the Trial Court held that the preponderance of probability is in favour of the plaintiff's case and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance of the contract. Therefore, the court passed a decree for specific performance directing the defendants to execute the sale deed with respect to the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff within two months from the date of the judgment, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to apply for the execution of the sale deed through the Execution Court. The suit was decreed with costs.

6. On an examination of the oral evidence and materials on record, we have noted that the Trial Court did not enter into any positive finding regarding the execution of the alleged agreement for sale. This is a case where the suit was filed for specific performance on the basis of an oral agreement for sale. The exact date on which the advance amount was received by the defendants or the exact date of receipt of the balance sale consideration is not pleaded in the plaint, nor there is any communication between the parties for over an year from the date of the alleged oral agreement in March 1992 till Ext.A13 lawyer's notice dated 25.9.1993. Though it is alleged that the entire sale consideration was paid, there was no demand for execution of the sale deed for a considerable length of time. The plaintiff has no case that neither the advance amount nor the subse