JUDGMENT :

The appellants in this appeal have called in question the judgment and decree passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Cuttack in Title Appeal No.74 of 2013.

The respondent as the plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of contract with alternative prayer for recovery of the advance consideration of Rs.4,000/- from the defendants with interest pendente lite and future.

The suit being contested by the appellant-defendants had been decreed in part refusing the plaintiff –respondent the relief of specific performance of the contract and decreeing the suit in part as regards recovery of advance consideration of Rs.4,000/- from the defendants with pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum. The defendant-appellants being aggrieved had carried an appeal to the lower appellate court. In that appeal the plaintiff-respondent having received notice filed a cross-appeal as against the refusal of the trial court to grant him the decree for specific performance of contract by the defendants. The lower appellate court in rendering the judgment both in the appeal as well as in the cross appeal filed by the present appellant-defendants decreed the cross-appeal and thus the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed in granting the relief of specific performance of contract directing the defendant-appellants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in respect of the suit land as per the agreement (Ext.1) within two months on receipt of the balance consideration giving liberty to the plaintiff-respondent to get the sale deed executed through the process of the court in the event of failure of the defendant-appellants to do so.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court.

3. Plaintiffs case is that the defendant no.1 acquired the suit land on 08.12.1992 under a registered deed of gift (Ext.2) and in order to meet the expenses for the marriage of defendant no.2, he proposed to sale the suit land to the plaintiff. So, according to him, Ext.1 was brought in place on 04.08.1986. It was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the sale of the suit land would be made for consideration of Rs.20,000/-and that the sale deed would be executed within a period of three years therefrom after obtaining necessary permission from the Urban Ceiling Authority. A sum of Rs.4,000/-was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants as advance consideration and the balance consideration of Rs.16,000/- as agreed was to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed. It is alleged that the defendants remained totally callous after the same and they did not apply for necessary permission as above despite issueance of notice and thus showed no interest in the direction of the execution of the sale deed and its registration pursuant to the agreement for the sale, i.e., Ext.1. The plaintiff claims to have been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and, according to him, the matter did not materialize simply on account of failure on the part of the defendants to perform their part as contained in the agreement.

4. The defendants in the written statement while traversing the plaint averments stated to have been residing in the house standing over the suit land since long. They denied to have been in need of money at any time and thus to have never expressed their desire to sale the suit land and also to have entered into an agreement with the plaintiff. The agreement (Ext.1) is said to be a fraudulent one and outcome of misrepresentation, manufactured by the plaintiff for grabbing their land. They denied to have any knowledge about the agreement and its contents. According to them the consideration fixed for the sale of the suit land is inadequate. The defendants claimed that they earn their livelihood by doing the work as porters and also maki