CHAMAN LAL (D) THR. LRS. versus KAMLAWATI (D) THR. LRS.

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 1071 · Decided: 16-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1071
CHAMAN LAL (D) THR. LRS.
v.
KAMLAWATI (D) THR. LRS.
(Civil Appeal No.2633 of 2012)
JULY 16, 2019
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
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.
[2019]  9 S.C.R. 1071
1071
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1072
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
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]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1073
1.3 The perusal of the gift deed shows that what is sought
to be gifted does not mention any lesse

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.