Each word is important: Supreme Court laments poor English translation of trial court verdict

The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which the judgment of a civil court was translated into English [Zoharbee and another v. Imam Khan (d) thr. lrs. & ors.]..A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice PK Mishra observed that, in matters of law, words are of indispensable importance — each word, every comma, has a bearing on the overall understanding of the issue.The Court noted that that due care must be taken in translation of judgments to ensure that the true meaning and spirit of the words in the original language are accurately conveyed."We record our dissatisfaction with the manner in which the judgment of the learned civil court was translated into English. In matters of law, words are of indispensable importance. Each word, every comma has an impact on the overall understanding of the matter. Due care has to be taken to ensure that the true meaning and spirit of the words in the original language are translated into English for the Courts in appeal to comprehend what had transpired below," the apex court said..The Court was hearing a plea filed by one Zoharbee (appellant) concerning the estate of her late husband, Chand Khan. The dispute involves the division of property left behind by Chand Khan between his widow Zoharbee and his brother Imam Khan.Zoharbee contended that all the property of Chand Khan constituted matruka property (estate left by a deceased Muslim). Since Chand Khan died without children, she claimed entitlement to three-fourths of the total property under Mohammedan law, leaving the remaining one-fourth to his brother.However, the brother argued that some of the property had already been transferred to third parties during Chand Khan’s lifetime, and another portion had been sold to a third party, with payment received partly before and partly after Chand Khan’s death. Based on this, he claimed there was no property left to be partitioned as matruka. .The Supreme Court observed that under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, an agreement to sell does not automatically transfer ownership of immovable property.The Court said that since no registered sale deed had been executed, Chand Khan remained the owner until his death, making the property part of the matruka to be divided among heirs."Since the rules governing inheritance are clear and there is no room for subjective analysis, the proportions assigned have to be necessarily followed. The property in question is unquestionably matruka property and so has to be distributed amongst the survivors of Chand Khan, as per the principles laid down in this regard," the Court added.It further referred to chapter IV, verse 12 of the Qur’an, noting that a widow is entitled to one-fourth of her husband’s property if there are no children, and one-eighth if there are descendants."Principles of Muslim Law of inheritance depicts that the sharers are entitled to a prescribed share of the inheritance and wife being a sharer is entitled to 1/8th the share but where there is no child or child of a son how low so ever, the share to which the wife is entitled is 1/4th," the Court said.In this case, with Chand Khan dying childless, Zoharbee was entitled to one-fourth of the matruka, with the rest passing to other heirs, including his brother, the Court concluded..Advocates Ajay Majithia and Shekhar Kumar appeared for Zoharbee.Senior Advocate Sudhanshu S Choudhari along with advocates Vatsalya Vigya, Gautami Yadav, Pranjal Chapalgaonkar and Yash Singhania appeared for respondents. .[Read Judgment]