JUDGMENT RAJES KUMAR, J.-The present first appeal has been filed against the order of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow dated 28.2.2009 passed in case No. 1015 of 2008. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the appellants have been allotted plot No. C-1/625 area 200 sq. mtr. in Sector "J", Janki Puram Scheme, Lucknow by Lucknow Development Authority in the year 1973. Subsequently, a sale-deed was executed on 8.10.2004 in their favour. Thereafter, on 2.11.2007 sale-deed was executed by the appellants in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Major Upendra Nath Pandey and Smt. Deepti Pandey in respect of the said property. The sale-deed was registered. The aforesaid suit has been filed by the appellants for the rectification of the sale• deed dated 2.11.2007 under section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The rectification has been sought on the ground that the appellants are parents of the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 is the daughter-in-law of the appellants. The intention of the appellants was to gift the aforesaid land to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 so that they may obtain loan from their departments and raise the construction over it. For the aforesaid purpose they approached one Sri Dharmendra Dixit, Junior of Sri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, Advocate, who drafted the instrument and the day on which it was to be executed and registered there was heavy rush in the office, they could not read the instrument and on the instructions of the Advocate, the appellants as well as the respondents put their signatures on instrument. Later on the copy of the instrument has been received for the purpose of taking the loan, the mistake has been detected and thereafter, the suit has been filed for rectification. The prayer in the suit was that the sale instrument dated 2.11.2007 be treated as gift instrument and not as sale-deed. It was submitted that there was a mutual mistake of the parties in executing the such instrument and it does not express the real intention, inasmuch as the real intention was to execute the gift deed and not the sale-deed. The Court below had not accepted the plea of the appellants and has dismissed the suit by the impugned order. It was submitted that there was a mutual mistake of the parties in executing the such instrument and it does not express the real intention, inasmuch as the real intention was to execute the gift deed and not the sale-deed. The Court below had not accepted the plea of the appellants and has dismissed the suit by the impugned order. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) held that it is not the case of mutual mistake of the parties but by means of present suit the parties want to change the nature of the instrument itself from sale-deed is clearly mentioned and all the clauses relates to the sale of the property in dispute on a consideration of Rs. 14.75 lacs and there is no evidence on record to show that the sale-deed was executed on account of mutual mistake of the parties and it does not express the real intention of the parties. 3. Heard Sri A.P. Singh Gaur, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that due to mutual mistake of the parties instead of executing the gift deed instrument, the sale-deed was executed. He submitted that the mistake in fact has been committed by the Counsel, who had drafted the instrument and the parties without going through the instrument have put their signatures on such instrument. He submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are son and daughter-in-law of the appellants and the real intention was to give the land by way of gift without any consideration so that the respondents may take the loan from their departments to raise the construction over it. While by mistake in place of gift deed, sale-deed has been executed. He submitted that such mistake falls within the purview of section 26 of the Act. Thereafter, the Civil Judge (Senior Division) ought to have allowed the suit and rectified the instrument as prayed for. In support of the contention he relied upon the decisions of Madras High Court in the case of Natarajan Asari v. Pichamuthu Asari 1 AIR 1972 Mad. 192 and the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Rikhiram Pyarelal and another v. Ghasiram Dukalu 2 AIR 1978 MP 189 . 5. In support of the contention he relied upon the decisions of Madras High Court in the case of Natarajan Asari v. Pichamuthu Asari 1 AIR 1972 Mad. 192 and the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Rikhiram Pyarelal and another v. Ghasiram Dukalu 2 AIR 1978 MP 189 . 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we parties, the impugned order and also perused the instrument, which is sought to be rectified. 6. Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 read as follows: "26. When instrument may be rectified.- (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. 7. 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. 7. Section 26 of the Act applies to a situation where there is mutual mistake of the parties that the instrument in question did not truly express the real intention of the parties and the Court finds that there has been mistake in framing the instrument and it must ascertain the real intention of the parties in executing it. On being satisfied of those two elements, it is the discretion of the Court to grant rectification. 8. We have perused the instrument, which is enclosed alongwith the affidavit filed in support of the memorandum of appeal. The instrument is titled as "sale-deed". The appellants have been titled as sellers and the respondents have been titled as purchasers. The sale consideration mentioned in the sale-deed is Rs. 14.75 lacs, on which stamp duty has been paid. It is the complete sale-deed in all respect. No documents has been produced by either of the parties to show that the appellants intended to execute the gift deed and not the sale-deed. There is no evidence on record to establish that the documents were the result of mutual mistake on the part of the parties contrary to their intention. 9. In the circumstances, it is not the case of mistake at all. By the aforesaid suit, the appellants want to change the nature of the instrument, which does not fall within the purview of section 26 of the Act and, therefore, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has rightly dismissed the suit and refused to rectify the instrument as sought for under section 26 of the Act. The decisions cited by learned Counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the present case. In both the cases, namely, Natarajarz Asari v. Pichamuthu Asari (supra) and Rikhiram Pyarelal and another v. Ghasiram Dukalu (supra) there was a mistake in the description of the property in the sale-deed, which was sought to be rectified on the ground that there was a mutual mistake on the part of the parties in mentioning the description of the property. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal fails/and is accordingly dismissed. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal fails/and is accordingly dismissed. First Appeal Dismissed.