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. 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 making idols and statues. It is their case that defendant no.2’s marriage was performed in ‘Tola Kaniya’ form for which there was no need of such expenses. It is also stated that the suit land is their only homestead land and over a part of that they reside. So, the question of transferring the same did never arise. It is their case that defendant no.2’s marriage was performed in ‘Tola Kaniya’ form for which there was no need of such expenses. It is also stated that the suit land is their only homestead land and over a part of that they reside. So, the question of transferring the same did never arise. It is further alleged that the plaintiff being a literate person, the defendant no.1 was reposing confidence on him and was taking advise and suggestions in many matters concerning family properties. So, it is said that taking advantage of the same, this Ext.1 has been created by obtaining thumb impression and signature of the defendant nos.1 and 2 respectively on blank papers by misrepresenting them that it was so necessary for arranging a loan for them. 5. The trial court on such rival pleadings framed as many as eight issues. First taking up issue nos.5 and 6 for decision as those concern with agreement for sale and the important ingredient of specific performance of contract i.e. the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff so as to entitle him for the grant of specific decree of specific performance of contract, the trial court answered those as under:- The plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hand to get an equitable relief. The defendants have failed to establish their signature to have been taken on blank papers for securing loan and that with the help of those papers, Ext.1 has been created. Next, a contrary view has been taken that Ext.1 shows that the writings were made after obtaining the LTIs and signatures of the defendants. It has further been held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was all along ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. So, on these grounds the plaintiffs’ entitlement to the decree for specific performance of contract has been held in the negative. However, next coming to the issue no.7 it has been categorically held that the suit property has not been properly described and is not identifiable and, therefore, the same has also been taken a ground to refuse the relief of specific performance of contract. However, next coming to the issue no.7 it has been categorically held that the suit property has not been properly described and is not identifiable and, therefore, the same has also been taken a ground to refuse the relief of specific performance of contract. Lastly, of course the trial court has found the plaintiff’s entitlement to recover the advance consideration of Rs.4,000/- paid to the defendants to be recovered from them and has ordered for said realization with pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum. The lower appellate court finding fault with the answer of the trial court on the issue nos. 5 and 6 and holding the views to be contradictory has held the agreement, Ext.1 to be specifically enforceable and accordingly decreed the suit granting said relief. 6. The present appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether an executable decree for specific performance of contract can be passed on the basis of wrong boundary description of the suit, more so when, no sketch map is attached to the contract”? 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the lower appellate court has totally not touched the finding of the trial court on issue no.7, which has been rendered on detail discussion of the materials available on record. According to him, under no circumstances it can be said that the suit land has been properly described and is identifiable so that a valid and executable decree for specific performance of contract in respect of the said property can be passed against the defendants. In support of his submission, he has placed the description of the suit land given in the plaint in Ext.1, the agreement side by side placing the evidence of the witnesses. In view of that, he submits that the lower appellate court has erred in law by decreeing the suit granting the plaintiff with the relief of specific performance of contract. He further contends that the decree in respect of recovery a sum of Rs.4,000/-with interest as passed by the trial court is also not sustainable in the eye of law, since, according to him, Ext.1 is a suspicious document and the plaintiff has not been able to successfully prove the execution of the same. 8. He further contends that the decree in respect of recovery a sum of Rs.4,000/-with interest as passed by the trial court is also not sustainable in the eye of law, since, according to him, Ext.1 is a suspicious document and the plaintiff has not been able to successfully prove the execution of the same. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the description of the suit land is just and proper and it is identifiable. Referring to Ext.1, he contends that it having been indicated that the house standing on the suit land has been agreed to be sold, the identity is to be held to have been established. He further contends that when the defendants have banked upon the theory of blank paper the burden of proof that the document as laid was not intended to be executed nor so executed squarely lies upon them and according to him, in this case they have utterly failed to discharge the said burden. Therefore, he urges that the appeal does not bear any merit. 9. A careful reading being given to the judgment of the lower appellate court, this Court agrees with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the finding of the trial court on issue no.7 has not at all been touched though it goes to the root of the case. Issue no.7 is relating to vagueness of the description of the suit land. It is elementary that no court would pass a decree which would be inexecutable or would be rendered infructuous. The omission to give a proper description of the property involved in the suit and forming its subject matter in some manner amounts to a defect in substance. The required description has to be given inconsonance with the provision of Order 7, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure which says that it should contain sufficient description to identify it and if it can be so identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey and those are required to be specified. The required description has to be given inconsonance with the provision of Order 7, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure which says that it should contain sufficient description to identify it and if it can be so identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey and those are required to be specified. So in a suit for specific performance of the contract when the court passes a decree, direction is required to be given to the defendants for execution of the deed in question in respect of specific property for which there stood the agreement between the parties which has been held to be specifically enforceable. 10. Coming to the case in hand, it is seen that the basis, i.e., the agreement (Ext.1) finds mention in its schedule that out of land Ac.0.096 dec., the subject matter of the agreement is land of Ac.0.040 dec. and that is excluding the lands sold prior to that from out of the land measuring Ac.0.96 dec. Though plot number and khata number have been given, yet the boundary as described does not concern with the land to the extent of Ac.0.040 dec. as per the description in the plaint and that has been given the same. No such specific para has been devoted in the plaint elaborating further description of the subject matter of the suit. The boundary given in the plaint as also in the agreement though tallies, the same is the boundary of the land given in Ext.2, the deed of gift, the same covers the entire land which originally came to the hands of the defendant no.1 measuring Ac.0.096 dec. Exts. A and B, the two sale deeds show that the land measuring Ac.0.39 dec. from out of that total land had already been sold in the year 1971-72, thus leaving balance of Ac.0.057 dec. So even if it is accepted that the agreement was actually executed between the parties for sale of land measuring Ac.0.040 dec., there remains no specific description of the same. Neither the agreement contains any map nor any such annexure is provided to the plaint. P.W.3 has categorically deposed that a sketch map was prepared at the time of preparation of the draft. However, neither such draft nor such sketch map have been proved in the case. Neither the agreement contains any map nor any such annexure is provided to the plaint. P.W.3 has categorically deposed that a sketch map was prepared at the time of preparation of the draft. However, neither such draft nor such sketch map have been proved in the case. Therefore, the exact location of the land is not shown and the same remains uncertain. The plaintiff has not taken any such step during the trial of the suit to establish the identity of the land covered under the Ext.1 forming the subject matter of the suit for specific performance of the contract. In such state of affair, it becomes clear that no such decree can be passed in favour of the plaintiff directing specific performance of the contract for sale of specific land. Not only that Ext.1 suffers from the vice of vagueness of the description of the property but also the plaint also so suffers and it has also not been filled up through evidence during the trial. The lower appellate court, therefore, having failed to look into this aspect and rather being in oblivion of the same having allowed the cross appeal in decreeing the suit for specific performance of the contract has no doubt committed the error and as such the same is not sustainable. The aforesaid discussions provide necessary answer to the substantial question of law in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. 11. Next coming to the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, it is seen that the trial court’s finding as regards execution of Ext.1 is not in clear terms and answers on issue nos.5 and 6 are based on conflicting views. Be that as it may, it has been held that the defendants have failed to establish the blank paper theory as alleged by them. Moreover, it is seen that when the defendants assert that their LTIs. and signatures were taken on blank papers by the plaintiffs for the purpose of arranging a loan, there remains no such evidence as to what was the special relationship between them so that the plaintiff would come to the defendants for the purpose of rendering the help and the defendants would be reposing so much of confidence on him to even give LTIs. and signatures on the blank papers. and signatures on the blank papers. Simply pleading to that effect that being a literate person the defendants were relying on them would not suffice the purpose in the absence of any such acceptable evidence. Furthermore it arouses suspicion in the mind that when the defendants admit to have given those signed papers to the plaintiff yet they have remained silent for a such long period and have awaken from slumber in coming up with said story only during the suit in the written statement not even showing any earlier response to the prior notice in that light. A bare look at Ext.1 shows that the view taken by the trial court in that regard that the LTI and signatures were taken prior to the writings being made is found to be without any basis and that is also not permissible in the facts and circumstances as well as available evidence. Thus, the courts below having concurrently found that the defendants have failed to establish the blank paper theory on which they had relied upon no such fault can be said to have been committed thereby. In view of that, when the plaintiffs’ entitlement to the decree for specific performance of the contract is not favoured with, he is however found entitled to a decree as prayed for, in the alternative, for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,000/-from the defendants with interest pendente lite and future @ 6% per annum. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The plaintiffs suit is thus decreed in part holding him entitled to the decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,000/-with pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum from the defendants. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, there would, however, be no order as to cost.