Summary
The gift deed conveyed the entire property, defeating the donor’s later partition claim to half. The High Court could correct its construction in second appeal using an authenticated translation whose accuracy both sides had accepted. Interpretation of the foundational title instrument raised a legal question within the applicable Punjab statute. The wording, whole-property possession, revenue entries and prolonged conduct supported the entire-property gift.
Issues
- Whether correcting construction of the translated title deed exceeded second-appeal jurisdiction.
- Whether the gift conveyed the whole land or an undivided half.
Provisions considered
- Sections 41 and 42, Punjab Courts Act, 1918Permitted addressing the legal infirmity arising from inaccurate translation and construction of the title instrument; the corrected construction was within the restricted appellate jurisdiction. (¶¶ 9, 11–12)
Held
- Authenticated translation and transliteration of the Urdu/Persian instrument, accepted by both sides, could be considered notwithstanding the earlier appellate order’s setting aside. Incorrect construction of a foundational title document presented a legal issue. (¶¶ 8, 11–12)
- The deed specified no retained part, vested ownership and possession in the donee, and the undisputed possession covered the entire property. The reference to half the monetary value was a recording convention, not a restriction of the gift. (¶ 13–14)
- Mutation of the entire land, later sales and the donor’s prolonged failure to object corroborated the parties’ understanding. The stamp-value argument did not overcome the deed, including because the cited Punjab amendment postdated the transaction. (¶ 15–18)
Result
Appeal dismissed; High Court decision rejecting the half-share partition claim upheld. Parties bear their own costs.