1. Invoking appellate jurisdiction of this Court under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant has filed this appeal calling in question the validity, legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 31.1.1992, passed by IV Additional District Judge, Sagar, in CS No. 31-A/91 decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance of the contract to the extent of half portion of appellant-defendant No.2 and for refund of Rs.2,750/-.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal, shortly narrated, are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of the contract against the appellant and his brother Abdul Majid alleging that the defendants in the month of September, 1983 came to Sagar and entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for sale of their house for a consideration of Rs.31,500/-. They demanded a sum of Rs. 18,500/- as advance money but the plaintiffs were not having that much money therefore, they offered the defendants to take some amount in the form of earnest money. The defendants insisted for the payment of Rs. 18,500/-and asked the plaintiffs that if they do not have the money, the same may be paid after fifteen days and on payment of Rs. 18,500/- the agreement would be executed. At that time defendant No.1, Abdul Majid, the brother of the appellant also told the plaintiffs that after fifteen days if he fails to come to Sagar, his brother, the defendant No.2-appellant would execute the agreement and that would be binding on him also and he would come at the time of registration of the sale deed.

3. The plaintiffs also averred that on 3.10.1983 defendant No.2 received Rs. 18.500/- as earnest money on behalf of himself and his brother, Abdul Majid and agreed to sell the suit house for Rs. 31,500/-. It was agreed that remaining amount of consideration would be taken at the time of registration of the sale deed. A period of four months i.e. upto 3.2.1984 was settled for the execution of the sale deed. It was agreed by defendant No. 2 on behalf of both the brothers that vacant possession of the suit house shall be given to the plaintiffs after getting the same from the tenants. Thereafter, the defendants delivered vacant possession of three rooms to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also averred that in the month of January, 1984 they went to the suit house and found that the area is less than what is shown in the map given by the defendants, therefore, on 25. 1.1984 they wrote a letter to the defendants in this regard and also served them with a notice dated 27.1.1984. The defendants gave a false reply to the notice and by implication refused to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs further averred that in order to collect money for purchasing the suit house plaintiff No.2 sold his house having a value of Rs. 17,500/- for a small amount of Rs. 10,000/- and thus suffered a loss of Rs. 7,500/- to avoid any delay in payment of remaining amount of consideration.

4. The plaintiff also pleaded that the neighbours of the suit house filed a suit against the defendants and the plaintiffs for permanent injunction. The suit was filed in coalition with the defendants in order to avoid the execution of the sale deed. As the sale deed was not executed, the plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance of the contract and in the alternative, they claimed refund of earnest money together with interest and for damages of Rs. 7,600/- suffered by the plaintiff No. 2 in selling his house in hurry at a low price.

5. The defendants by filing separate written statements controverted the allegations made in the plaint. The defendant No.1 stated that he never entered into an agreement to sell the suit house. The agreement in question was not executed by him. No amount was received by him in the form of consideration for sale. He denied that the possession of any portion of the house was handed over to the plaintiffs. The defendant No.2 in his sep