( 1. ) INVOKING appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, appellants Jagdish Prasad Agrawal and Ganga Bisen agrawal have filed this appeal calling in question the correctness, legality, validity and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 4-2-1993, passed by IInd additional District Judge, Chhindwara in Civil Suit No. 61-A/88 dismissing their suit for Specific Performance of Contract.

( 2. ) THE brief facts of the case lying in a narrow compass and relevant to the decision of this appeal are apt to be dilated hereunder:-Appellant/plaintiffs filed a suit for Specific Performance of the contract of sale of a house situated at Chhindwara stating that plaintiff No. 2/appellant No. 2 is the father of appellant No. 1/plaintiff No. 1. They are the proprietors of a grain shop known as Nathmal Harchand Agrawal. One gomaram Agrawal was the adopted son of late Seth Narshinghdas Agrawal who among other properties owned a plot and a house thereon in the New Extension area, Chhindwara. Said Gomaram entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs on 18-12-1986 agreeing to sell the said suit house in favour of plaintiff No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/ -. It was agreed that the plaintiff will pay him rs. 10,000/- at the time of agreement and the balance amount of Rs. 20,000/- will be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed which was agreed to be executed by him on 31-12-1987. But on agreement being written and read over to him, said Gomaram insisted on payment of Rs. 11,000/ -. Accordingly the figure of Rs. 10,000/- was corrected as Rs. 11,000/- in the document. This correction was countersigned by Gomaram. Thus, a sum of Rs. 11,000/- was paid to Gomaram at the time of execution of the agreement. It is alleged in the plaint that plaintiff No. 2 wanted to purchase the suit property in the name of his son-plaintiff No. 1.

( 3. ) THE plaintiffs averred that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract by paying the balance consideration of rs. 19,000/ -. The plaintiffs in furtherance of performance of their part of the contract paid a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- to said Gomaram on 20-1-1987. A sum of Rs. 4,600/- was paid through cheque drawn on the Punjab National Bank and a sum of Rs. 400/- was paid in cash towards balance consideration. ( 4. ) SAID Gomaram all of a sudden died on 7-4-1987 Gomaram was issueless and had left no heirs.

( 5. ) IT is alleged in the plaint that defendants No. 1 and 2 are claiming themselves to be the heirs of deceased Gomaram and also inter-meddling with the estate of the deceased and thus they are the legal representatives of deceased Gomaram. The plaintiffs served a notice dated 17-9-1987, calling upon the defendants No. 1 to 3 to execute the sale deed in furtherance of the agreement executed by deceased Gomaram, but they refused to specifically perform the contract. A correction notice was also served on defendants on 15-10-1987. The plaintiffs have also stated that they deposited in the Trial Court balance consideration of Rs. 14,000/- less costs of the suit.

( 6. ) THE suit was contested by defendants No. 1 and 2, denying the facts that any agreement to sell the suit house was executed by Gomaram. They admitted that they are the legal representatives of deceased Gomaram. It was also stated by defendantas No. 1 and 2 that the transaction in question is admittedly Benami transaction which is prohibited under the provisions of benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (henceforth, "the Act" for short ). ( 7. ) THE Trial Court framed as many as five issues and recorded a finding that the transaction in dispute is a Benami transaction which is prohibited by the Act. However, the Trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit for the refund of amount of Rs. 11,000/- received by Gomaram as part consideration with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of realization.

( 8. ) AS the relief