Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.

1. This Second Appeal, by the defendants/appellants/appellants has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 3 of 1999, whereby learned lower appellate court has dismissed the appellants appeal affirming and upholding the judgment and decree of learned trial court passed in Title Suit No. 23 of 1995.

2. The plaintiffs/respondents had filed the Suit praying a decree for specific performance of contract and confirmation of possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs case was that the defendants father late Satyanarain Kejriwal, by virtue Page 969 of an agreement dated-11.09.1980, had contracted to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 36,000/- and out of which had taken Rs. 17,050/- by way of advance. The balance amount was payable at the time of the execution and registration of the sale deed. The plaintiffs in part performance of the said contract, were also put in possession of the suit property and they had been in continuous possession of the same since then. The plaintiffs requested several times to execute and register the sale deed but the same was not heeded upon. The plaintiffs then sent a legal notice but the defendants father even thereafter did not perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff then wrote a letter to the then Chief Minister of Bihar and on his direction, the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj initiated a proceeding being K.M.P. Case No. 9 of 1984-85. By order dated-08.04.1999, the Deputy Commissioner directed the defendants father to adhere to the terms of the contract and to execute the sale deed. However, a proceeding under Section 4(H) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act was initiated being Case No. 4 (H) 1 of 1985-86, in which both the parties of the case i.e. the plaintiff and the father of the defendant, appeared and in the said proceedings, the defendants father admitted to have accepted a further advance of Rs. 1,000/- on 06.12.1989 and undertook to execute the sale deed on receipt of the balance consideration amount. On 03.11.1993, the defendants father Satyanarain Kejriwal died. The suit was filed against the defendants, who are the heirs and the legal representatives of said Satyanarain Kejriwal.

3. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement denying the plaintiffs claim and stating, inter alia, that there was no contract to sale between the parties rather there was only proposal to sell the suit property by the defendants father in order to get his daughter married and for that purpose he had taken advance of Rs. 17050.00 and the sell was proposed only on payment of the balance amount of Rs. 18,950/- within four months but the plaintiffs failed to pay the balance amount and, as such, the proposal was cancelled and the money was forfeited. The defendants never delivered possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs and that the suit property is still in their possession.

4. The suit was mainly contested on the ground that there was only proposal to sell and the said proposal was cancelled for non-payment of the balance amount within four months and that the money given in advance was forfeited. On the basis of the said pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed several issues. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidences. Learned trial court on thorough appraisal of the evidences and the materials on record found, inter alia, that there was agreement to sell between the parties which is still subsisting and the same is not cancelled and the sum of Rs. 17050.00 given to the defendants has not been forfeited. The trial court further held that the suit is not barred by limitation. Other issues were also decided in favour of the plaintiff and the suit was decreed. The defendants then filed a regular appeal before the learned District Judge, Sahebganj, which was ultimately heard and decided by the Additional District Judge, First, Sahebganj. In view of the grounds