Ramkumar, J.

1. The two defendants in O.S. No. 139 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kasaragod, are the appellants in this first appeal. Pending the appeal the first appellant died and her legal representatives were impleaded as additional appellants 3 to 8. The aforesaid suit was one for specific performance of Ext.A1 agreement for sale dated 19-1-1993 of two items of immovable properties each admeasuring 12 cents belonging to the first and second defendants respectively. The plaintiff's case

2. The case of the plaintiff can be summarised as follows:-

The plaint schedule items 1 and 2 belong to defendants 1 and 2 respectively. As per Ext.A1 agreement for sale dated 19-1-1993 the plaintiff agreed to purchase and the defendants agreed to sell the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 1,45,000/-. The plaintiff paid Rs. 55,000/-on the date of the agreement itself and the defendants have acknowledged the same in Ext.A1 agreement. The defendants agreed to execute the sale deed by 21-4-1993. The balance consideration of Rs. 90,000/- was payable at the time of registration of the sale deed. Eventhough the date for executing the sale deed was fixed, time was not the essence of the contract. The plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract . The plaintiff had made several requests through his son to handover the title deeds for getting the draft of the sale deed prepared. But the defendants did not come forward to execute the document. The plaintiff caused Ext.A2 registered notice dated 11-6-1993 to be sent to the defendants demanding execution of the sale deed. However, the defendants have in their reply dated 21-6-1993 raised false and frivolous contentions. The plaintiff is doing business in Calcutta and his son approached the defendants for obtaining the sale deed. The second defendant requested for a portion of the consideration amount. He was informed that the entire amount would be paid and the sale deed could be registered earlier. But the defendants were postponing the execution of the sale deed under some pretext or the other. The defendants sent Ext.A3 reply stating that Ext.A1 agreement was rescinded and that the defendants have entered into another agreement for purchase of property and they have suffered loss on account of the non-performance of the contract by the plaintiff. The defendants are liable to perform the contract and the plaintiff is entitled to get the sale deed executed and registered through Court. Hence, the suit. The defence

3. The suit was resisted by the defendants who filed a joint written statement contending inter alia as follows:-

The plaint has not been properly presented for want of a valid power of attorney. It is true that Ext.A1 agreement was entered into for sale of the plaint schedule property. But as per the agreement time was the essence of the contract and the plaintiff was liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.90,000/- on or before 21-4-1993 at the time of registration. The plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract on or before the said date. Plaintiff never got the sale deed written up . He never offered to pay the balance amount as agreed. The sum of Rs. 55,000/-paid under Ext.A1 was in the form of earnest money which is not liable to be returned. There was no failure on the part of these defendants to execute and register the sale deed. Some photostat copies and some originals of the documents relating to the title of these defendants to the suit properties were handed over to the plaintiff even at the time of Ext.A1 agreement. Hence, the plaintiff's contention that he could not prepare the draft sale deed is not correct. Believing in good faith that the plaintiff would honour the terms of Ext.A1 agreement, the second defendant had entered into Ext.B1 agreement dated 14-02-1993 with one Thimmappu for purchase of an item of property and paid an earnest money of Rs