JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. : This an appeal against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Aska passed in T.A. No.19 of 1982 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, Aska in T.S. No.15 of 1980 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant-respondent. 2. Plaintiff-appellant’s case was that he purchased the suit land measuring 6 cubits north to south, 30 cubits east to west standing on Survey No.115/11 in patta No.35 of village Nuagam on 8.9.1976 from one Sahadev Nahak, who had purchased that land from one Bhobani Nayak on 18.5.1965 in the name of his wife Late Kishori Debi by way of benami transaction. The defendant-respondent whose house adjoins the suit site encroached into the suit land measuring an extent of 4 x 30 cubits inspite of protest of the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff accordingly filed the suit for a direction to the defendant-respondent to vacate the suit land, to restore the suit site to its original condition at his own cost and also not to enter upon or otherwise interfering in any way with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit land. Defendant-respondent in his written statement took the stand that the sale deed dated 8.9.1976 relied on by the appellant is a collusive one and that the land described in the sale deed does not relate to the suit land. The respondent’s specific case was that the suit land originally belongs to one Nityananda Nayak, who after taking Rs.250/- from him gave deliv¬ery of the suit land to him and since them he is in possession of the suit land, which situates on Survey Plot No.115/11 in Patta No.35. Respondent also claimed that the legal heirs of Nityananda Nayak had never any objection about his possession over the suit land and on 21.8.1980 the sons of Nityananda executed a sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit land acknowledging receipt of Rs.250/- by their father 22 years back. The respondent further pleaded that the appellant subsequently got rectification deed executed on 3.7.1980 with a view to grab the suit land although he had no right, title and interest over 3. Considering the pleadings of the parties, learned Munsif, Aska framed the following three issues. The respondent further pleaded that the appellant subsequently got rectification deed executed on 3.7.1980 with a view to grab the suit land although he had no right, title and interest over 3. Considering the pleadings of the parties, learned Munsif, Aska framed the following three issues. (i) Whether the plaintiff or his vendor had any right, title and interest and possession over the suit land situated on Survey Plot No.115/11 ? (ii) Whether the Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit ? (iii) To what relief, if any ? Plaintiff-appellant examined 4 witnesses and produced the sale deeds, which were marked as Exts.1 to 4. Respondent-defendant also examined four witnesses and produced the sale deed dated 21.8.1982, which was marked as Ext.A. On consideration of the evidence, learned Munsif came to hold that the plaintiff-appellant did not purchase the suit land which stands on plot No.115/11, Patta No.35, never acquire title or possession over the same and was accordingly not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for and accordingly, dismissed the suit on contest with cost. 4. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant carried Title Appeal No.19 of 1981 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Aska challenging the aforesaid findings of the trial Court. The said appeal having been dismissed and the findings of the trial Court having been confirmed, the plaintiff appellant has preferred the present appeal with a prayer to set aside the judgments of the Courts below. 5. The following substantial questions of law have been raised in the present appeal. (a) When the sale deeds Exts.1, 2 and 4 were not challenged by the defendants, questioning the identity and when there was no pleading to that effect, whether it can be said that the above sale deeds do not refer to the suit land ? (b) Whether the rectification deed dated 3.7.1980 is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act ? (c) Whether the defendant-respondent failed to prove his title and whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree basing on possessory title ? 6. Mr. (b) Whether the rectification deed dated 3.7.1980 is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act ? (c) Whether the defendant-respondent failed to prove his title and whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree basing on possessory title ? 6. Mr. Goutam Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when there was no pleading or evidence from the side of the defendant-respondent challenging the identity of the suit land, the Courts below went wrong in recording the finding that the land purchased under Ext.1 is not the suit land particu¬larly when the ratification deed Ext.3 was available to clarify the issue. According to him, the rectification deed, Ext.3 was never hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act as Sec¬tion 26 of the Specific Relief Act permits amendment and rectifi¬cation even during pendency of the suit. In support of his con¬tention, he relied on the cases of Raipur Manufacturing co. Ltd. v. Joolaganti Venkatasubba Rao Veerasamy & Co., reported in AIR 1921 Madras 664, Sk. Jalil v. Mirza Saha and others, 1962 (I) C.W.R., 283. 7. Despite receipt of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondent. 8. In paragraph 4 of the written statement, respondent clearly mentioned that the lands in S.No. 115/11 measuring Ac.0.07 situates to the south of S.No.115/10 and that he has been possessing the land in S.No.115/11 all along. In paragraph 5 of the written statement, it was also mentioned that the plaintiff having no right, title interest and possession intends to snatch away a slice of land out of S.No.115/11 under the pretext that the same is part of the land purchased by him. In paragraph 6 of the written statement, it was also mentioned that the suit sched¬ule and boundaries described in the plaint are wrong, vague and indefinite. With such averments in the written statement, it is absurd to say that there was no pleading challenging the identity of the suit land described in the plaint. Ext.4 is the sale deed executed on 8.10.1952 by one Nityananda Nayak in favour of Bhoba¬ni Nayak in respect of the land in Patta No.23, S.No.115/10 situ¬ated in village Nuagam. Subsequently, in Ext.2, Bhobani Nayak sold that land to one Kishori Debi, W/o. Sahadev Nayak for a consideration of Rs.200/- on 11.5.1965. Ext.4 is the sale deed executed on 8.10.1952 by one Nityananda Nayak in favour of Bhoba¬ni Nayak in respect of the land in Patta No.23, S.No.115/10 situ¬ated in village Nuagam. Subsequently, in Ext.2, Bhobani Nayak sold that land to one Kishori Debi, W/o. Sahadev Nayak for a consideration of Rs.200/- on 11.5.1965. Sahadev Nayak after death of his wife Kishore Debi sold 1 and 1/2 cent of land out of the land purchased as per Ext.2 to the present plaintiff-appellant on 8.9.1976 for a consideration of Rs.1500/- under sale deed Ext.1. In the said sale deed, it has been clearly described that the land purchased appertains to patta No.23, S.No.115/10 and is bounded by East-Karchuli road, West-land of Gurumurti Patra, North-land of the purchaser and land of the defendant and South-land of Judhistir Naik. The defendant-respondent in the written statement claimed that he never encroached into the aforesaid land of the appellant and that he is in possession of the land situated in patta No.35, S.No.115/11 after purchasing the same from Nityananda Naik. After such plea of the respondent in the written statement, appellant obtained the deed of rectification, Ext.3 in his favour from Sahadev Naik on 3.7.1980 wherein it was indicated that the description of patta number and plot number in Ext.1 was not correct and that the correct patta number and plot number would be Patta No.35, S.No.115/11 in place of Patta No.23, S.No.115/10. The Courts below took a view that the ratification deed does not help the appellant as it was prepared after the filling of the written statement and also for the reasons that in the successive sale deeds, Exts.4, 2 and 1, the land sold has been described as part of Survey No.115/10 of patta No.23 and the previous vendors do not say that the land sold was part of S.No.115/11 of Patta No.35. The Courts below also reasoned that the vendor of the plaintiff cannot give such rectification as he was not the original owner of the suit land and had himself purchased the land described as part of patta No.23, plot No.115/10 and accordingly refused to rely on the rectification deed Ext.3. This rejection of Ext.3 is now under serious chal¬lenge in this appeal. 9. According to Mr. This rejection of Ext.3 is now under serious chal¬lenge in this appeal. 9. According to Mr. Mishra as per provision of Section 26 of Specific Relief Act, rectification of mistake in a document is permissible even during pendency of the suit and so, it was not proper for the Courts below to reject Ext.3. Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act speaks as to when an instrument may be recti¬fied. It reads thus : “26. When instrument may be rectified-(1) when through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties, a contract or other instru¬ment 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 Cl.(b), may in addition to any other defence open to him, ask for recti¬fication of the instrument. (2) If, in any suit in which a contractor 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 discre¬tion, 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. (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.” This Section, therefore, essentially says that when through fraud or mutual mistake of the parties an instrument does not express their real intention, the neither party may institute a suit to have instrument rectified. Similarly in any suit in which any right assigned under the instrument is in issue, the plain¬tiff or defendant may claim that the instrument may be rectified and if the Court finds that the instrument through fraud or mistake does not express the real intent in of the parties, it may in it’s discretion direct rectification of the mistake so as to express the real intention. In the Cases of Raipur Manufactur¬ing Co. Ltd. v. Joolaganti Venkatasubba Rao Veerasamy & Co., (supra) & Sk. Jalil v. Mirza Saha and others, (supra), the High Court of Madras and this Court also held that where there is a clerical error in the document embodying the contract it is not always necessary that a separate suit should be brought for rectification of the document and that it is open to the Court in a proper case to allow the plaintiff or the defendant to amend the plaint and ask for the necessary rectification. The ratios laid down in these cases clearly say that rectification of a document is permissible during the pendency of the suit provided a clerical or bona fide mistake is detected in the document and the Court feels that rectification of such mistake in such docu¬ment is necessary to understand the real intention of the parties to that document. In the rectification deed, Ext.3, it has been mentioned that wrong plot number and patta number were noted on sale deed No.4896 of 1996 by mistake and that accordingly, the same is rectified by indicating correct patta number as “35” and S. Plot number as “115/11”. In the rectification deed, Ext.3, it has been mentioned that wrong plot number and patta number were noted on sale deed No.4896 of 1996 by mistake and that accordingly, the same is rectified by indicating correct patta number as “35” and S. Plot number as “115/11”. It is pertinent to note that this rectification deed was executed after filling of the written statement by the respondent in T.S. No.15/1980 and the contents of the deed negates the plea of the defendant. it is also perti¬nent to note that Sahadev Naik and his vendor had purchased the concerned land in Exts.2 and 4 respectively where the land has been shown as part of patta No.23, S. Plot No.115/10 and those vendors have not come forward to certify that it was a mistake. In such a situation the provision of Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act is hardly applicable. The ratio in the cases Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Joolaganti Venkatasubba Rao Veerasamy & Co. (supra) and Sk. Jalil v. Mirza Saha and others (supra) are also not applicable as the facts and circumstances of those cases are materially different from the present case. 10. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act prohibits transfer of property during pendency of a suit. It says that during pendency of any suit, the suit property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the right of any other party thereto under any decree or order, which may be made there under except under the authority of the Court and on terms as it may impose. The rectification deed Ext.3 was executed during pendency of the suit without the lease of the Court and its contents, if accept¬ed, adversely affect the plea of the defendant-respondent. So the document was clearly hit under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Courts below, therefore, did not commit any legal error in refusing to rely on Ext.3. 11. On the score of possession, Mr. Mishra argued that the Courts below went wrong in accepting the sale deed, Ext. A as evidence of possession of the respondents over the suit land because the said document was also hit under Section 52 of the T.P. Act. 11. On the score of possession, Mr. Mishra argued that the Courts below went wrong in accepting the sale deed, Ext. A as evidence of possession of the respondents over the suit land because the said document was also hit under Section 52 of the T.P. Act. He argued that the Courts below also committed error of record in saying that D.W.2 stated that his father never sold the suit land to the plaintiff-appellant. The contention of Mr. Mishra is untenable for the simple reason that the Courts below never accepted or relied on Ext.A, but simply stated that the sons of vendor, who executed Ext.A stated before the Court that their father had accepted Rs.250/- from the defendant and had delivered possession and that the defendant was all along in possession of the suit land. Thus, it was the oral evidence of D.W.2 that was relied and not the contents of Ext. A. Similarly, on close reading of the evidence of D.W.2, it can be seen that he made a statement that the signature on Ext.1 was not that of his father and that his father never delivered possession of the suit land of the appellant. So, the Courts below did not commit any legal error or error on record. 12. The Courts below have discussed the evidence and the circumstances exhaustively and arrived at a conclusion that the appellant did not purchase the land on Survey Plot No.115/11 in patta No.35 and that he was never in possession of the suit land. The discussion, analysis and conclusion do not seem to be unrea¬sonable or perverse and as has been stated above the Courts below also did not commit any error on record. Therefore, there is hardly any scope for this Court to interfere with the findings of the Courts below on the issue of title, and possession of the suit land. 13. The questions raised by the appellant are answered accordingly. The Second Appeal is found to be without any merit and is dismissed. No cost. Appeal dismissed.