1. Dispute over whether a gift deed transferred half or the entire land area — Suit for partition. (Para 1 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 926
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
Chaman Lal (D) Thr. Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Kamlawati (D) Thr. Lrs. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s). 2633 of 2012
Decided On : 16-07-2019
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rupinder Singh Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Varun Khanna, Adv. Mr. Aditya Giri, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tushar Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Shovit Singh, Adv. Mr. Naresh Bakshi, AOR Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rupinder Singh Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Varun Khanna, Adv. Mr. Aditya Giri, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tushar Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Shovit Singh, Adv. Mr. Naresh Bakshi, AOR Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, AOR
The construction of a document of title, such as a gift deed, necessarily raises a question of law. The High Court has jurisdiction in a second appeal to ensure accurate translation and interpretation of such documents to determine the parties' rights and the extent of the gift.
Headnote:
Gift Deed - Dispute over land ownership - Punjab Court Act, 1918, Section 41 - The court discussed the dispute over the ownership of a piece of land based on a gift deed and the subsequent mutation of the land. The court also examined the jurisdiction of the High Court to order a genuine translation of the gift deed and the accuracy of the translation. The court held that the High Court did not exceed its jurisdiction in getting an authenticated translation done and that the status of the property could not be disturbed after a prolonged period of time since the execution of the gift deed.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from the filing of a suit for partition by late Sh. Chaman Lal, claiming that only half of the total land was gifted to late Smt. Gurdev Kaur. The possession of the land remained with late Smt. Gurdev Kaur, and the mutation was made in her name. The trial court decreed the suit for partition, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court interfered with the decision in a second appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the High Court did not exceed its jurisdiction in ordering a genuine translation of the gift deed and that the status of the property could not be disturbed after a prolonged period of time since the execution of the gift deed. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the parties should bear their own costs.
Issues: The main issue was the ownership of the land based on the gift deed and the subsequent mutation. Another issue was the jurisdiction of the High Court to order a genuine translation of the gift deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the High Court did not exceed its jurisdiction in ordering a genuine translation of the gift deed and that the status of the property could not be disturbed after a prolonged period of time since the execution of the gift deed.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in a second appeal by ordering a fresh translation of the gift deed. (Para 9 , 10 )
3. The High Court correctly ensured an accurate translation of the title document to avoid fundamental legal infirmity in interpretation. (Para 11 , 14 , 15 )
4. The construction of a document of title or a document forming the foundation of parties' rights necessarily raises a question of law. (Para 12 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 20 )
6. Does the High Court have jurisdiction to order a fresh translation of a disputed document in a second appeal under the Punjab Court Act?
Yes, if the document is the fulcrum of the dispute, ensuring an accurate translation is necessary to avoid fundamental legal infirmity in interpretation, which falls within the ambit of Section 41 of the Punjab Court Act. (Para 11 )
7. Does the construction of a document of title raise a question of law for the purpose of a second appeal?
Yes, it is well settled that the construction of a document of title or a document which is the foundation of the rights of parties necessarily raises a question of law. (Para 12 )
8. How is a gift deed interpreted when the document is silent on land retained by the donor and possession is transferred?
If the deed does not specify any area held back and the donee is deemed the owner in possession, the court may infer the entire land was gifted, particularly when supported by mutation records and party conduct. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. The subject matter of dispute is half of the land measuring 3 Biswas and 11 Bighas out of Khasra No. 1252, Khata No. 318/563 in Dholewal, Ludhiana. The land was purchased by Chaman Lal (late appellant) from one Mansa Ram on 30.7.1949. A gift deed was executed on 10.3.1958 by Chaman Lal in favour of late Smt. Gurdev Kaur, his stepmother. The controversy relates to the fact whether suit was in respect of half portion of the total land or the whole land was gifted to late Smt. Gurdev Kaur.
2. It cannot really be disputed that the possession of the land remained with late Smt. Gurdev Kaur. It appears that no mutation was made till the jamabandi of 1969-70 when the whole land was mutated in the name of Smt. Gurdev Kaur, who soon thereafter, sold the land to Smt. Kamla Wati on 15.3.1971. The consequent mutation was made on 24.10.1972.
4. The dispute arose from the filing of suit for partition by late Sh. Chaman Lal on 22.08.1987. In the suit claim was sought to be laid that what was gifted was only half of the total land. Late Smt. Gurdev Kaur was arrayed as the 1st defendant and Smt. Leelawati as the IInd defendant.
5. Pendente lite the land was re sold by defendant No.2 to defendant Nos. 3 & 4, on 4.1.1995 and 6.1.1995 who were thus impleaded as the defendants. It is these defendants who are respondents 1 & 2 before us and are really contesting parties.
6. The trial court in terms of judgment and decree dated 20.11.1998 decreed the suit directing the partition into half share each. The first appellate court affirmed the decree vide judgment and order dated 28.8.1999. However, the second appellate court being the Punjab and Haryana High Court interfered with these concurrent findings in terms of judgment dated 02.04.2002. Late Chaman Lal preferred a special leave petition against the said order being SLP(C) No. 2713 of 2003. The appeal was allowed on 6.10.2003 on the short ground that the Second Appeal has been decided without framing any substantial question of law as was mandatory requirement under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The matter was thus remitted back to the High Court which has again allowed the appeal in terms of the impugned judgment dated 23.01.2008.
7. We may notice prior to proceeding on merits of the matter that the order of this Court dated 6.10.2003 was predicated on a legal position which stands subsequently clarified by a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Pankajakshi (D) through Lrs. & Ors. vs. Chandrika & Ors. (2016 (6) SCC 157) opining that insofar as the Punjab and Haryana High Court is concerned, a different legal position would prevail and a substantial question of law is not to be determined, in view of the State amendments, as a pre-requisite before interfering with the orders of the trial court.
8. Be that as it may, the aforesaid is being referred to, so as to complete the facts as also by reason of the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 drawing our attention to certain facts recorded in the earlier Second Appeal order dated 02.04.2002 which may be somewhat germane to the controversy in question. We may notice that crucial development 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 learned judge had summoned the person who had translated the document being gift deed (Exh. P1) in the Court and had read the document in open court in the presence of learned 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 Sh. Chaman Lal did make a gift of the entire land. In the same proceeding it is also
