ORDER : 1. Respondent’s counsel is absent. 2. The plaintiff in O.S.45/2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Chamarajanagar, has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.2014 on application filed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’ for short) by the plaintiff in the said suit. 3. The plaintiff’s suit is for rectification of the registered sale deed dated 29.3.2007 executed by him in favour of the defendant. The material facts are that the defendant is a registered trust. The plaintiff is also one of the trustees. He is the absolute owner of the land in Sy. Nos. 106 to 109, 113 and 114 of Mangala Village, Hangala Hobli, Gundlupet Taluk. He wanted to transfer these properties to the defendant trust by executing an absolute gift deed without any consideration. He intended that these properties should be held by the trust for achieving its objects. With this intention he went to Gundlupet for the purpose of executing gift deed in favour of the defendant trust. There he was informed that the gift deed would also attract stamp duty on the present market value. The SubRegistrar told him that the market value of the property according to Government guideline value was Rs.1,99,62.000/and the document would not be registered unless the stamp duty was paid in accordance with the guideline value. The plaintiff and defendant were advised that the deed would not be registered if the consideration amount was not shown and therefore a nominal consideration for Rs.10,00,000/was agreed to be paid by the trust to the plaintiff. In this background, instead of a gift deed, a sale deed came into existence. Consideration for the sale was shown as Rs.10,00,000/. Thereafter, the deed was registered as a sale deed. The plaintiff states that owing to an erroneous impression the sale deed came into existence. His intention was to gift the properties to the trust. The plaintiff has stated that the document registered on 29.3.2007 does not reflect of his true intention to gift the property. Thereafter he requested the defendant to get the document rectified and then the defendant told him that proper legal steps should be taken for that purpose and hence the suit. 4. The defendant also appeared and stated in the written statement that the intention of the plaintiff was to gift the properties to the trust. Thereafter he requested the defendant to get the document rectified and then the defendant told him that proper legal steps should be taken for that purpose and hence the suit. 4. The defendant also appeared and stated in the written statement that the intention of the plaintiff was to gift the properties to the trust. Because of wrong advice by the document writer and the SubRegistrar, a sale deed in place of gift deed came into existence. He also consented for decree. 5. Thereafter, the plaintiff made an application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC to pass a decree based on the admissions found in the written statement. But, the trial court dismissed this application giving the reason that the plaint does not disclose the circumstances under which a document could be ordered to be rectified. The observation by the trial court is that as the plaintiff appears to have received consideration at the time of registration of the sale deed and then executed the document with full knowledge of what he was doing, there is no scope for ordering rectification of the instrument. It is also observed that the defendant was also aware what he was doing and therefore there was no mutual mistake as envisaged in Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act. Giving these reasons, the application stood dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has committed an error in dismissing the application. The real intention of the plaintiff was to gift the property to the trust. The defendant in the written statement has admitted the case of the plaintiff. They might have acted on a wrong advice given by the SubRegistrar, at the same time it can be made out that there was a mistake on the part of the parties in understanding the true transaction. Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act is very much applicable in the facts and circumstances pleaded. He argued that in the context of the case, mutual mistake cannot be interpreted in such a way that the plaintiff and the defendant mistook or misunderstood each other. The circumstance shows that they acted upon a wrong advice. Moreover section 26 (1) (c) of the Specific Relief Act states that the defendant can also apply for rectification. He argued that in the context of the case, mutual mistake cannot be interpreted in such a way that the plaintiff and the defendant mistook or misunderstood each other. The circumstance shows that they acted upon a wrong advice. Moreover section 26 (1) (c) of the Specific Relief Act states that the defendant can also apply for rectification. This being the case, the trial court should not have dismissed the application giving a literal interpretation to the section. 7. Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act clearly states the circumstances under which a document can be ordered to be rectified. If there was a fraud or mutual mistake of the parties and whenever true intention of the parties are not expressed, document can be ordered to be rectified. In this case though the plaintiff might have stated that when he went to Gundlupet for execution of the document, the deed writer and the SubRegistrar advised them that the gift deed would also attract stamp duty on the market value of the property and for this reason they might have agreed for showing Rs.10,00,000/as the consideration amount. This is the reason the plaintiff has given for seeking rectification of the instrument. The plaint further discloses that the plaintiff wanted to gift the property to the trust. This is not controverted by the defendant also. Therefore, the real intention of the plaintiff was to gift the property and not to sell the property to the defendant trust. Looked from this angle, the document executed on 29.3.2007 was in fact a gift deed though it was registered as a sale deed. When the defendant expressed his clear intention that the document required rectification in the light of the circumstances narrated in the plaint, the trial court ought to have exercised jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. It has failed to exercise its jurisdiction. Therefore, it is a case for revision. For these reasons, the revision petition stands allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is allowed. The concerned SubRegistrar is directed to rectify the sale deed dated 29.3.2007 as a gift deed and make necessary entries in its registers. The trial court is directed to draw decree accordingly.