K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal arises out of the suit O. S. No. 53/1982 on the file of the principal Civil Judge, Mandya, filed by the respondent-plaintiff. The trial court has decreed the suit and the lower appellate court has affirmed it. ( 2 ) SRI M. S. Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants defendants, has raised only one contention namely that having regard to the provisions contained in Section 26 of the Specific reliefs Act and the averments made in the plaint, the declaration of title sought for by the plaintiff ought not to have been granted without there being a relief sought for rectification of the mistake in the documents i. e. , mortgage deed, safe certificate and the records in O. S No. 643 of 1951-52. ( 3 ) IT is not disputed before the courts below that the boundaries mentioned in the mortgage deed Ex. P. 1 and the sale certificate tally with the boundaries of S. No. 99/5 and not with that of s. No. 99/6. On the basis of the evidence on record and the boundaries contained in the relevant documents viz , mortgage deed, the decree passed in 0 S No. 643 of 1951-52, the sale certificate and the continuous possession of the plaintiff of the suit land, the courts below have held that the land that was mortgaged was s No. 99/5 and it was that land which was sold along with another land bearing s. No. 100/6 by public auction in the execution proceeding to satisfy the decree passed in O S. No, 643/1951-52, and was purchased by the plaintiff. The trial court has passed a decree declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land and has also granted a decree for permanent injunction. The lower appellate court has affirmed it. ( 4 ) SECTION 26 of the Specific Relief act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') does not take away the jurisdiction of civil court to declare a title to a particular property on proof of title. The lower appellate court has affirmed it. ( 4 ) SECTION 26 of the Specific Relief act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') does not take away the jurisdiction of civil court to declare a title to a particular property on proof of title. Section 26 of the Act only enables the parties or their representatives-in-interest to a contract or other instrument in writing not being the Articles of Association of a company to which the Companies Act, 1956 applies, to institute a suit to have the mistake crept in the contract or instrument in writing as a result thereof, it does not express their real intention rectified on the ground of fraud or mutual mistake. The suit falling under Section 26 of the Act can be maintained only on two grounds namely that the mistake has crept in the document either through fraud or a mutual mistake. No other ground is available. Such a suit shall have to be filed within three years from the date of the knowledge of fraud or mutual mistake. If the suit is based on an any other ground other than or in addition to the aforesaid two grounds and so also there are other reliefs sought for in the suit and relief of rectification of the mistake in the document is not an independent relief sought in the suit. Section 26 of the Act is not attracted. The cause of action for the suit falling under Section 26 of the Act, is discovery or the date of knowledge of mistake that has crept in the document due to fraud or mutual mistake as a result of such mistake, the document does not express the real intention of the parties. Whereas in the case of a suit for declaration of title, the cause of action accrues on the denial of title or an act of the defendant which causes imminent threat or danger to the title of the plaintiff, the period of limitation is also different ; one does not depend on the other. A decree for declaration of title can be granted even without the rectification of the mistake in the document on the basis of which the title is sought if the title is proved in spite of such mistake by evidence aliunde. A decree for declaration of title can be granted even without the rectification of the mistake in the document on the basis of which the title is sought if the title is proved in spite of such mistake by evidence aliunde. If without seeking a relief of rectification of the mistake in the document the plaintiff is able to prove his title to the suit property, it is permissible in law and the court has an undoubted jurisdiction to pass a decree declaring the title of the plaintiff to the suit property as claimed in the plaint. The relief of declaration of title is an independent relief. It does not depend upon S. 26 of the Act. Therefore. Section 26 of the Act does not, and cannot be held td take away the jurisdiction of the court or come in the way of the court to pass'a decree declaring the title of the plaintiff even without the rectification of the mistake crept in the document of title. It is the ordinary general jurisdiction of the civil court to grant a decree for declaration of title. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that in the absence of a relief for rectification of the mistake in the documents in question, the decree for declaration of title to the suit property sought for by the plaintiff ought not to have been granted. Accordingly the contention is rejected. ( 5 ) NO other contention is urged. Hence no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is therefore not admitted and it is accordingly rejected. --- *** --- .