Subhadra & Ors. v. Thankam, AIR 2010 SC 3031, this Court while deciding upon whether the agreement suffers from any ambiguity and whether rectification is needed, held that when the description
of the entire property has been given and in the face of the matters being beyond ambiguity, the question of rectification in terms of Section 26 of the Act would, thus, not arise. The provisions of Section 26 of the Act would be attracted in limited cases. The provisions of this Section do not have a general application. These provisions can be attracted in the cases only where the ingredients stated in the Section
are satisfied. The relief of rectification can be claimed where it is through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties that real intention of the parties is not expressed in relation to an instrument.
of the entire property has been given and in the face of the matters being beyond ambiguity, the question of rectification in terms of Section 26 of the Act would, thus, not arise. The provisions of Section 26 of the Act would be attracted in limited cases. The provisions of this Section do not have a general application. These provisions can be attracted in the cases only where the ingredients stated in the Section
are satisfied. The relief of rectification can be claimed where it is through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties that real intention of the parties is not expressed in relation to an instrument.
(Also see: State of Karnataka & Anr. v. K. K. Mohandas & etc, AIR 2007 SC 2917)
