DIPAK MISRA, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANTS Nos. 3 (a) and 4 originally were appellants against an affirming judgment in a suit for specific performance of contract and in the alternative for recovery of possession. During pendency of the appeal, due to death of defendant No. 4 (appellant No. 2) his legal representatives being substituted have prosecuted the present appeal.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiffs is that they are the owners of 'b' schedule property measuring Ac. 1. 45 decimals and the defendants are, the owners of 'a' schedule property measuring Ac. 0. 34 decimals. As shown in the plaint genealogy the defendants are the descendants of a common ancestor. Defendant No. 1 represents one branch, defendant No. 2 the second and defendants Nos. 3 and 4, the third branch. In the year 1971, the defendants approached the plaintiffs to give them 'b' schedule properties in exchange of 'a' schedule properties. The plaintiffs agreed and an oral contract was effected on 24-8-71. In part performance of the contract, the defendants 2, 3 and 4 shifted to the 'b' schedule land. It was only defendant No. 1 who did not comply with the terms of the contract. As the defendant No. 1 did not shift, 1/4th o