Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)

R.James Arulappa vs C.Arul Thiagaraja on 5 March, 2004

"9. The first point for consideration is, whether, through a mutual mistake of the parties, the mortgage instrument in this Base does not truly express their intention; in other words, the plaintiffs who seek the assistance of the Court for the rectification of the written instrument must clearly prove that there was a prior complete agreement which according to the common intention was embodied in writing, but by 5 reason of mistake in framing the writing, this did not express or give effect to the agreement. As James, V. C., tersely expressed the substance of the matter in Mackenzie v. Coulson (1839) 8 Eq. 863. "Courts of Equity do not rectify contracts, they may and do rectify instruments purporting to have been made in pursuance of the terms of contracts."
1