When instrument may be rectified
Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with when instrument may be rectified. When, through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties a contract or other instrument in writing [not being the articles of association of a company to which the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), applies] does not express their real intention, then-- (a) either party or his representative in interest The Act came into force on 01 Mar 1964.
(1) When, through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties a contract or other instrument in writing [not being the articles of association of a company to which the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), applies] does not express their real intention, then--
(a) either party or his representative in interest may institute a suit to have the instrument rectified; or
(b) the plaintiff may, in any suit in which any right arising under the instrument is in issue, claim in his pleading that the instrument be rectified; or
(c) a defendant in any such suit as is referred to in clause (b), may, in addition to any other defence open to him, ask for rectification of the instrument.
(2) If, in any suit in which a contract or other instrument is sought to be rectified under sub-section (1), the court finds that the instrument, through fraud or mistake, does not express the real intention of the parties, the court may in its discretion, direct rectification of the instrument so as to express that intention, so far as this can be done without prejudice to rights acquired by third persons in good faith and for value.
(3) A contract in writing may first be rectified, and then if the party claiming rectification has so prayed in his pleading and the court thinks fit, may be specifically enforced.
(4) No relief for the rectification of an instrument shall be granted to any party under this section unless it has been specifically claimed:
Provided that where a party has not claimed any such relief in his pleading, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the pleading on such terms as may be just for including such claim.
Section 26, The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Act 47 of 1963).
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Joseph Johan Peter Sandy vs Veronica Thomas Rajkumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 has limited application and is attracted only in cases where it is pleaded and proved through fraud or mutual mistake of parties that the real intention of parties is not expressed in an instrument; rectification relief can be claimed only by parties to the instrument and by none else. The doctrine of undue influence requires satisfaction of a three-stage test: (1) relations between parties must be such that one is in position to dominate the will of the other; (2) the transaction must have been induced by such undue influence; and (3) if the transaction appears unconscionable, the burden of proving it was not induced by undue influence lies upon the person in position to dominate. When a document is propounded by a party in court, the burden lies on that party to prove the document, its authenticity, and that it was executed voluntarily; the other party is not required to prove it is forged. Admissibility of a document is distinct from its probative value; a document may be admissible yet lack probative value based on facts and circumstances, particularly when key witnesses are not examined and suspicious circumstances surround its execution. An unregistered agreement regarding property can be admissible in evidence but its probative value must be examined in light of evidence regarding its execution, the examination of attesting witnesses, identification of the scribe, and explanation of suspicious circumstances.
On this section: Rectification of instruments where through fraud or mutual mistake of parties, an instrument does not express real intention. Court held this section has limited application and is only attracted where it is pleaded and proved that through fraud or mutual mistake the real intention is not expressed. Relief can only be claimed by parties to the instrument.
-
Subhadra vs Thankam
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an agreement to sell contains a reference to another document that provides a complete and clear description of the property including extent, boundaries, and improvements, and the parties' intention to sell the entire described property is evident from the reference document, extrinsic circumstances, and corroborating evidence such as a commissioner's report, the agreement is not ambiguous and does not require rectification under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act to be specifically enforced. Section 26 applies only to limited cases involving fraud or mutual mistake, and its provisions are not attracted when the parties' real intention is already clearly expressed and corroborated by reference documents and factual findings.
On this section: Court addressed when rectification of an instrument is necessary and held that Section 26 applies only in limited cases involving fraud or mutual mistake, and that rectification is not a mandatory prerequisite for specific performance when parties' intention is clear from reference documents and circumstances
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may be permitted to execute a rectification deed. 6. Learned Government Pleader submits that such rectification is not possible insofar as a Will is concerned. 7. The law does not provide any platform or remedy for such issues. Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 only refers for rectification of instruments if it happened on account of fraud or mutual mistake. It does not speak about the mistake committed by the testator in a Will. This Court is only concerned about the manner in which such rectification has to be done. If the learned …
-
… It is contended by learned counsel that finding of the learned Sub Judge is erroneous in that the mistake that crept in the agreement for sale is a mutual mistake which can be corrected in the same proceedings invoking the power under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in Puram Ram v. Bhagaram and Another ([2008] 4 SCC 102). 3. In the light of the decision referred to supra there could be no doubt that if the mistake was mutual and there is no change in the identity of the property, even the …
Questions about Section 26
What have the courts held on Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act?
Joseph Johan Peter Sandy vs Veronica Thomas Rajkumar (12 Mar 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Rectification of instruments where through fraud or mutual mistake of parties, an instrument does not express real intention. Court held this section has limited application and is only attracted where it is pleaded and proved that through fraud or mutual mistake the real intention is not expressed. Relief can only be claimed by parties to the instrument. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2013.
How do I find court cases under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Specific Relief Act 26, section 26 Specific Relief Act, section 26 of the Specific Relief Act. People searching for it also type specific relief act 1963 section 26 and section 26 specific relief act judgments. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Joseph Johan Peter Sandy vs Veronica Thomas Rajkumar (12 Mar 2013).
When did Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act come into force?
Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, cited as Specific Relief Act 26, came into force on 01 Mar 1964, having been enacted on 13 Dec 1963. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 12. Specific performance of part of contract391 words
- 28. Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed382 words
- 15. Who may obtain specific performance330 words
- 13. Rights of purchaser or lessee against person with no title or imperfect title309 words
- 20. Substituted performance of contract269 words
- 20A. Special provisions for contract relating to infrastructure project260 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.