Punjab Court Act, 1918 – ss. 41 and 42 – Jurisdiction of High Court – Exercise of – Execution of gift deed by the son-original owner bequeathing land in favour of his step mother – Suit for partition by original owner, claiming that only half of the total land was gifted – Suit, in respect of half portion of the land or the whole land – Trial court directed the partition into half share each – Order upheld by the first appellate court – In Second Appeal, the High Court interfered with the concurrent finding and allowed the appeal – On appeal, held: High Court cannot be said to have exceeded its jurisdiction – It was exercised within the ambit of s. 41 – When the matter was pending in the High Court, translation and transliteration was got done of the document-gift deed – Person who had translated the document was summoned in the Court and had read the document in open court in the presence of counsel for the parties and it was thus, opined that the translation effected by the translation branch is absolutely correct, resulting in a finding that original owner did make a gift of the entire land –Acknowledgment of both the parties to the accuracy of the translation and the transliteration could not be doubted thereafter – Perusal of the gift deed shows that what is sought to be gifted does not mention any lesser land than the whole land – Translation would show that the donee is deemed to be the owner in possession of the gifted land – Thus, whatever land was gifted, the possession was handed over – Furthermore, matter is sought to be raised after 16 years of the land being sold to the IInd defendant, thus, the conduct of the parties suggests that they understood that whole land was gifted and the possession of the whole land was handed over and the status of the property is not liable to be disturbed – Deeds and documents.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 During the pendency of the Second Appeal, prior even to first order, was that a translation was got done from the concerned branch of the High Court of the document in question being the gift deed. A transliteration was also got done of this document. In that context it has been observed in the order dated 02.04.2002 that the concerned judge had summoned the person who had translated the document being gift deed in the Court and had read the document in open court in the presence of counsel for the parties. This was compared with the punjabi version of the document. It was thus opined that the translation effected by the translation branch is absolutely correct, resulting in a finding that late C.L. did make a gift of the entire land. In the same proceeding it is also recorded that the correctness of the version of this document’s translation is not disputed. [Para 8] [1076-A-C]
1.2 The High Court cannot be said to have exceeded its jurisdiction, as has to be exercised within the ambit of Section 41 of the Punjab Court Act. It is said so as the fulcrum of the dispute was the gift deed itself being the document in question. The document was originally penned down in Urdu with the Persian dialect and was thereafter translated to the Punjabi language. The next translation was done in English as also the transliteration. Thus, there would be a reliance on an inaccurate document if the translation and the transliteration was not accurate. This is the objective which was sought to be subserved by getting an authenticated translation done in the High Court and the concession/submission of the appellants recorded in order dated 02.04.2002 in respect of the translation, albeit the order being set aside. The acknowledgment of both the parties to the accuracy of the translation and the transliteration could not be doubted thereafter. If the substratum being the document has been inaccurately translated then there would be a fundamental legal infirmity in the interpretation to be given and in determining the controversy in question. This preliminary objection sought to be raised by the appellant on the right of the High Court to look into the question on merits cannot be accepted. [Para 11] [1077-E-H; 1078-A]
1.3 The perusal of the gift deed shows that what is sought to be gifted does not mention any lesser land than the whole land. If the plea of the appellant was to be accepted, then there should have been some area stated to have been gifted while the other would have been held back. This is not so. Of course, the submission for the appellant is that the area remained undivided and that is why the partition was being sought. [Para 13] [1078-F]
1.4 When the reference is made to Rs.800/-, it is in the context of half the value of Rs.1600/-, a methodology adopted which is prevalent in this part of the country while recording such translation wherefor accuracy of the figures, half the amount is mentioned to ensure that the actual figure is correctly reflected. Not only that the translation would show that the donee is “deemed to be the owner in possession of the gifted land”. Thus, whatever land was gifted, the possession was handed over. In the facts of the instant case, the possession of the complete land is undisputedly initially with the Ist defendant then with the IInd defendant and thereafter with the IIIrd and IVth defendants. [Para 14] [1078-G; 1079-A-B]
1.5 Jamabandi for the first time was done in the name of late G.K. for 1969–70. Prior to that the whole land remained in the name of late C.L., the original owner. It is not that the Jamabandi was done for half the land in favour of late C.L. and half in favour of late G.K. If at all a grievance would have arisen on behalf of late C.L. that could have been an occasion for it. The first time the matter is sought to be raised is 17 years later and after about 16 years of the land in question being sold to the IInd defendant. Thus, the conduct of the parties also suggests that the parties understood that whole land was gifted and the possession of the whole land was handed over. [Para 15] [1079-B-D]
1.6 The Indian Stamp (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1958 received the assent of the Governor of Punjab on 23.04.1958 and was published in the Gazette on 25.4.1958. Transaction in question was prior to that date. The status of the property is not liable to be disturbed after such a prolong period of time in the context of the facts and the legal position which has emerged since 10.3.1958. The gift deed can be read in one manner, and only in one manner. [Para 17, 18] [1079-E-G]
Pankajakshi (D) through LRs. & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 157 : [2016] 3 SCR 1018 ; Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Shipping and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1962] 3 Suppl. SCR 549
– referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.