NEED A SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE IN PAKISTAN?
Call Now +92-300-5075993
OR EMAIL US AT firstname.lastname@example.org
Why you will need a Succession Certificate?
The basic purpose of seeking a succession certificate by a family member is to withdraw the amounts of money left by the deceased with the banks, recover borrowed monies of the deceased person, recover insurance claims (if any) or any other similar investment in any of the savings either in the bank accounts and/or financial schemes.
For the purposes of obtaining a succession certificate either all of the legal heirs of the deceased persons, or some of them, or even one of them could apply to the court of Civil Judge .It is pointed out however that for transfer of the title of immovable properties a succession certificate is of not much help practically speaking, though it indicates the status of the surviving legal heirs with regards to the movable property & finances etc.
Why hire Josh and Mak International to help you get your Succession Certificate in Pakistan?
As your legal counsels , our duty will be to protect your legal rights, pertaining to your future financial assets (legacy of the deceased) as well as immovable properties in Islamabad or elsewhere in Pakistan. Looking after your estate’s fair distribution and your proprietary interests are not restricted to the procurement of the succession certificate alone, but also to any other matters of approval which may arise with the courts and/or state authorities subsequently. As your lawyers, our role is to help the court in determining, the correct shares in your favour under the current law. We may also add here, another interesting aspect of the matter. That is, if the deceased was maintaining a locker(s) in any of the Pakistani banks and you wish to obtain your rightful share in the contents of the locker, you will need permission from the Civil Court regarding the same. This permission, of course has to be listed expressly in the succession certificate obtained. Also, if your lawyer is present at the time of opening the locker(s) etc., they can watch/supervise the inventory list of the articles, prize bonds etc. jeweler, so that a proper list could be submitted in court for distribution of the said assets or shares in your favour.
As far as your immovable property left by the deceased and its transfer in your name is concerned, the lawyer will be responsible for apprising the concerned land and revenue departments, the “Capital Development Authority” (CDA) as far Islamabad is concerned and other State authorities (for assets elsewhere in Pakistan) about your legal and rightful entitlements to the same. You will need documentation from most of these public authorities if you need a confirmation of the property in your favour and also to have a rightful title to sale them in the future.
The most common assets of a deceased person are a house, land, plot etc., or money in the bank, shares etc. The law provides procedure to get title of house, land, plot etc. or money in the bank, shares etc. according to principles of Muhammad on Law.
Following are brief details of the procedure:
- Procedure to Get Ownership of House/Plot/ Land and Movable Assets etc.:
The legal heirs of deceased are required under the law to file a “Suit for Declaration” in the civil court and declare themselves as lawful successor of the deceased. Once the court makes declaration in favour of legal heirs, their names can be added as titleholder in the record of relevant regulatory authority.
Legal Requirements: For the filing of “Suit for Declaration” death certificate of the deceased is required along with title document of subject property and CNIC of the persons filing the suit. The estimated time for getting declaration, in case of no opposition from public, is between 3 to 6 months.
The process flow of suit is as under:
- Filing of the suit
- Final arguments & decree by the Court
- Recording of evidence
- Notices & public advertisement
- Reply of interested parties
II. Procedure to Get Possession of Money in the Bank, Shares etc.: For getting possession of Money in the Bank, Shares etc. in the name of deceased, a Succession Certificate is required under Succession Act 1925 (the “Law”). The Court satisfies itself to the requirements of Law and issued succession certificate according to principles of Islamic Law.
Succession certificates (General Information)
A succession certificate is a formal document which attests the qualification of a person as entitled to collect some debt or securities by entitled person.
Sec 370-390 of the Succession Act.
Jurisdiction of the court to grant succession certificate:
The district judge within whose jurisdiction the deceased ordinary resided at the time of the death, or if at the time he had no fixed place of residence, the district judge, within whose jurisdiction any part of the property of the deceased may be found, may grant a certificate.
Application for succession certificate:
Application shall be made to the district judge for the certificate.
Pre-requisites of application:
(i) Petition in written from.
(ii) Signed and verified by the application or on his behalf in the manner prescribed by the civil procedure code.
(iii) Time of death of deceased.
(iv) Ordinary residence of deceased.
(v) The property of the deceased with in whose limit.
(vi) Name of family members on near relatives of deceased.
(vii) The right in which the petitioner claims.
(viii) The securities and debt in respect of which the certificate is applied for.
In case more than one claimant:
In case where more than one person applies for certificate a joint certificate may be granted.
Who can apply for succession certificate:
Following persons can apply for the succession certificate.
(i) Any sound mind person.
(ii) Person who has attained the age of majority.
(iii) Any person who has interest in the estate of deceased.
(iv) Secretary of state.
(v) Any person who has beneficial interest in debt or security of the deceased person.
Procedure on application:
Procedure on application shall be as under.
Issuance of notice:
Judge shall cause notice on receiving application for the succession certificate. Person on whom the notice to be served:
He shall cause the notice on any person, on whom, in opinion of judge such notice should be given.
Affixation of notice:
The judge shall also order of the affixation of the notice as well as publication of such notice in the newspaper.
Decision on fixed day:
The judge shall make decision on the fixed day.
Issuance of certificate:The court on satisfaction that applicant is entitled for the succession certificate, will issue the same.
What are the contents of the succession certificate:
When succession certificate has been granted the court must specify there in the debts and securities grant of such certificate. the court may empower the person to whom the certificate is granted.
(i) To receive interest or dividend on or.
(ii) To negotiate or transfer or.
(iii) Both to receive interest or dividends on and to negotiate or transfer the securities or any of them.
Proceedings before the court:
Under the succession act only summary proceeding are provided for granting the succession certificate.
Application of the certificate:
A succession shall have effect throughout Pakistan.
Effect of certificate:
Succession certificate shall be conclusive as against the person owing such debts and securities.
Reference Case Law
2015 PLD 132 HIFEEZA Vs GENERAL PUBLIC
Ss. 5(2), 372 & 384—Application for succession certificate —Appeal under S.384 of succession Act, 1925 against dismissal of application for certificate —Jurisdiction of court—“Domicile”—Interpretation and determination—Deceased was temporarily residing out of country and claimed amount lying there—Competent forum—Application for issuance of succession certificate , was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on ground that predecessor was domiciled of a foreign country and amount claimed was lying abroad—Applicants contended that their predecessor was permanent resident to Pakistan and had gone abroad to earn livelihood where he was temporarily residing—Validity—Applicants and their predecessor were permanent residents of Pakistan—Correct criteria for issuance of succession certificate was domicile of the deceased at time of his death—Nothing was available on record that could show that the deceased had intended to abandon Pakistan for ever—Trial court while dismissing application filed under S.372 of succession Act, 1925, had erred in facts and law while interpreting the word ‘domicile’—Word ‘domicile’ had not been defined in succession Act, 1925—In ordinary meaning ‘domicile’ meant the place where a man lived or had his home—Impugned order was set aside and Trial Court was directed to decide succession application on merits in accordance with law—Appeal was accepted in circumstance.
2015 PLD 127 Mst. RAZYA GHULAM The GENERAL PUBLIC
- 375—-Object—Object of demanding security from person, in whose favour succession certificate has been granted by court, is to ensure proper rendition of account by him regarding debts and securities of deceased received by him and to provide indemnity to such person, who may be entitled to whole or any part of these debts and securities—Where all heirs of deceased were before court and there was no doubt that any other person was or may be entitled to the estate of deceased and all such persons were adult and major and they expressed their consent for grant of succession certificate in favour of one of the heirs of deceased, court in such clear cases may not at all insist upon furnishing of security.
2015 PLD 127 Mst. RAZYA GHULAM vs. The GENERAL PUBLIC
Ss. 372, 373 & 375—-succession certificate —Condition of furnishing of surety—Scope—Petitioner, being sole legal heir of her husband who was government servant, filed petition for obtaining succession certificate and other legal heirs did not object to issuance of succession certificate —Trial Court allowed said petition subject to production of two sureties equal to amount of the succession certificate —Petitioner filed application seeking dispensation with furnishing of said two sureties, which the court dismissed—Petitioner contended that her case was not covered under S.373(3) or S.373(4) of succession Act, 1925, and Trial Court in terms of S.375 of the Act had discretion to dispense with furnishing of surety in appropriate cases—Validity—Trial Court passed impugned order of dismissal of application without giving any reason and mentioning contentions of petitioner’s counsel—Impugned order, being “non-speaking” and resulting from non-application of judicial mind, was not a judicial order—Trial Court, declaring petitioner to be sole legal heir of the deceased and entitled to issuance of succession certificate , should not have insisted upon furnishing of sureties—Petitioner was entitled to grant of succession certificate without furnishing sureties—High Court accepting the petition ordered issuance of succession certificate in favour of petitioner subject to obtaining personal surety bond of any government official.
2015 PLD 127 Mst. RAZYA GHULAM vs. The GENERAL PUBLIC
Ss. 373 (3) & (4) & 375(1)—-succession certificate —Furnishing of surety—Word “Shall” in S.375 of succession Act, 1925 is used with reference to class of cases, which fell under Ss.373(3) & 373(4) of succession Act, 1925, wherein, court decides to proceed in summary manner to determine right as to grant of succession certificate —In such cases S.375(1) of succession Act, 1925 makes it incumbent on court to order issuance of certificate subject to furnishing of surety in addition to execution of bond—Where case for grant of succession certificate does not fall under S.373(3) or S.373(4) of succession Act, 1925, it is discretionary with court to require the person in whose favour certificate is issued to give surety as condition for grant thereof.
2015 CLC 282 Mrs. NAHEED KAMAL AZFAR vs. G.D.A.
- 372—succession certificate —Object—succession certificate could be issued only for debts and securities which would never give any general power of administration on the estate of the deceased nor same would establish title of the grantee as the heir of the deceased—succession certificate would only furnish the grantee with authority to collect debts due to the deceased and would allow the debtors to make payment to him with incurring loss—Object of succession certificate was to facilitate the collection of debts, to regulate the administration of succession and to protect person who was going to deal with the alleged representatives.
2015 CLC 282 Mrs. NAHEED KAMAL AZFAR vs. G.D.A.
Ss. 220, 372, 249 & 253—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199—Constitutional petition—Transfer of immovable property—Letter of administration—Scope—Petitioner applied for transfer of plot but respondent-department issued letter asking him to get permission of the court for the sale of the same and submit the succession certificate —Validity—Demand of respondent-department was not legal as succession certificate was issued against the movable property—Petitioner had produced letter of administration which had cleared the matter and there was no need of further permission for sale of property by the court—Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.
2015 PLD 360 ERUM vs. Mst. AMEENA
- 372—Government of Sindh Notification No.FD (SRIII)10 (06)/2006, dated 20-5-2009—succession certificate —Debts and securities/service benefits-Tarka-Compensation—`Concession’-‘Grant’-Group insurance—Benevolent fund—Distribution of service benefits of deceased civil servant—Scope—Legal heirs were entitled to inherit what deceased had left behind him whether movable or immovable including a right of claim which would be available for distribution among the legal heirs as per their legal entitlement—Only which the deceased was owning or possessing as owner and all other claims and rights which the deceased himself was entitled to make during his life time could be distributed among legal heirs—Assets left by the deceased could be distributed among legal heirs as per their entitlement—Tarka would be the absolute property of the deceased and same should be governed by law of inheritance of the deceased—“Concession” “grant” or “compensation” had to be dealt with as per wishes of the giver—Group insurance of the deceased employee did not fall within the definition of “Tarka” and same would not be available for its distribution among the legal heirs but would be dealt as per relevant rules and procedure framed by the employer (government) for such purpose—‘Benevolent fund and group insurance’ amount would not be part of “Tarka”—Court below had wrongly held the `group insurance amount’ to be part of “Tarka”—Compensation to Shaheed officers/officials of Sindh Police was payable to the family of deceased employee—Rights and claims of the deceased which he had during his life time but did not include “Tarka” should include any other amount which was given/paid by the employer—‘Compensation’ if being paid for Qatl-i-Amd or Qatl-i-Khata of the deceased by the accused would be heritable by all the legal heirs but if an amount was being given by the employer it should not be equated to that of “Diyat/compensation”—No restriction could be put on the right of the choice “giver” to choose best person out of the legal heirs of the deceased as “fit person”—Impugned order passed by the court below was not based on proper appraisal of law—Benevolent fund, amount of financial compensation with regard to Shahadat of deceased and group insurance should be dealt with in accordance with service rules—Widow was not liable to distribute the amount of group insurance which she had already received from the department—Widow was also entitled to receive the compensation payable under the scheme provided to Shaheed officials—Order of court below with regard to other service benefits due was in accordance with law—Accountant District Court should continue with authority to withdraw such amount and to ensure proper distribution of said amount among all legal heirs—Amount of share of minor legal heirs should be invested in some government profitable scheme—Widow would also be entitled towards pay and allowances and avail of other benefits as specified by the government from time to time till she did not marry—Appeal was disposed of in circumstances.
2015 PLD 304 HAMID HUSSAIN PALIWALLA vs FIRASAT HUSSAIN PALIWALLA
- 347—Administration or succession certificate —Limitation—Provision of R.347 of Sindh Civil Court Rules, prescribed no period of limitation and there is no limitation in suit for administration and application for succession .
2015 CLC 1135 ZAHID YOUNUS son of Muhammad Younus
Ss. 278, 291, 373 & 375—Sindh Chief Court Rules, (O.S.), R.400—Petition for grant of Letter of Administration in respect of immovable property belonging to deceased—Application for exemption from furnishing surety/security—Petitioner, along with petition filed under S.278 of succession Act, 1925 for issuance of Letter of Administration in respect of immovable property belonging to the deceased, had filed application under S.375 of succession Act, 1925, read with R.400 of the Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.), with a prayer for exemption of the petitioner from furnishing the surety/security and that Letter of Administration could be issued on the execution of personal bond—Validity—Under provisions of S.291 of succession Act, 1925, consequent upon the grant of Letter of Administration, it was incumbent upon the person in whose favour such Letter of Administration had been issued, to furnish a bond with one or more surety, or sureties for due collection and administration of the estate of the deceased—Where the court could not decide the right to the certificate without determining question of law, or fact which seemed to be too intricate and difficult for determination in summary proceedings, as contemplated in S.373(3) of succession Act, 1925 and in a case when there were more applicants than one for a certificate and it appeared to the court that more than one of such applicants were interested in the estate of the deceased, court while granting a certificate to the petitioner, had no discretion to dispense with furnishing of security for grant of succession certificate —No discretionary power, was vested in the court to dispense with the condition of furnishing surety—Petitioner having sought Letter of Administration in respect of only the immovable properties, prayers in the application, could not be granted.
2015 CLC 738 Mst. MEHRUNNISA v.s Syed MUHAMMAD ZOHA
- 372—Petition for grant of succession certificate —Issueless widow—Petitioner was the only surviving legal heir of deceased as at the time of death, the deceased was issueless and his parents had also expired during his lifetime—Despite publication of notice no other person had come forward to claim himself to be legal heir of deceased in any capacity or to object grant of succession certificate in favour of petitioner—Effect—Petitioner would inherit from the estate of deceased 1/4th of the estate as sharer and the remaining 3/4th would revert to her on the doctrine of return (Radd)—High Court issued succession certificate exclusively in the name of petitioner as the sole legal heir of deceased—Petitioner was an old lady with unstable mental condition, therefore, High Court appointed nephew of petitioner and Nazir of Court as joint guardians of petitioner—Application was allowed in circumstances.
2015 CLC 260 Mst. SAMINA NAZ vs. BABY DUA SAEED alias HIBA through her Mother and Natural Guardian
- 299—Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act (II of 1969), S.2 (5)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151—Salary—succession —Mother of deceased, right of—Deceased was police constable who died during an operation—Trial Court issued succession certificate and included mother of deceased in the list of legal heirs—Applicants were minor sons of deceased who through their mother assailed entitlement of their grandmother in distribution of salary of deceased—Validity—Parents of deceased, under S.2(5) of Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969, included under the definition of term “family”—Where term “legal heir” or “parents” was used, the same fell within the definition of term of “family” and they were entitled to receive Tarka left by deceased—Mother of deceased was legal heir and family member of deceased, who was wholly dependent upon him and was entitled to have share in salary of deceased as per Sharia according to her sect—High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Trial Court as it did not suffer from any legal infirmity—Application was dismissed in circumstances.
2015 PLD 30 Malik MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE v.s Mst. TANVEER JAHAN
- 372—succession certificate , grant of—DNA test, conduct of–Scope—Trial Court granted succession certificate —Applicant had challenged grant of succession certificate on the ground that respondent was an adopted child of the deceased and was not entitled to the grant of succession certificate —Application was dismissed concurrently—Validity—Paternity of respondent was not challenged during the life time of deceased—Dispute for the first time was raised by the applicant after the succession certificate was granted in favour of respondent—Applicant was the real brother of the deceased and after the succession certificate was granted he had challenged the paternity of respondent—Nothing was on record which would prima facie make out a case in favour of applicant—Applicant and respondent had filed respective suits seeking declaration with regard to status of respondents as a legal heirs of the deceased—Proceedings under succession Act, 1925 were of summary nature and such intricate questions could not be resolved in such proceedings—Court was bound to safeguard and protect the personal liberty of every person—DNA test could be ordered to be conducted under exceptional circumstances when there was a prima facie strong case—Neither blood samples could be taken nor a DNA test could be conducted in routine unless the person whose paternity had been challenged expressly had given his/her consent—Sufficient material had to be placed on record to make out a ‘strong’ prima facie case for conducting a DNA test—Applicant had not been able to make out a strong prima facie case nor was consent given by the respondent at any stage—No material irregularity or illegality had been pointed out in the impugned orders passed by the courts below—Revision was dismissed in circumstances—Applicant was imposed a cost of Rs.25,000/- for dragging the respondent into such frivolous litigation.
2014 CLC 126 Mst. RIFFAT YASMEEN vs. HASSAN DIN
- 372—succession certificate —General Provident Fund, leave salary, leave encashment and gratuity being in nature of tarka should go to the legal heirs of the deceased while group insurance, financial assistance and benevolent fund which did not fall within the ambit of tarka were just grant and grantee was empowered to distribute the same as per rules and regulations of service or any provision of law—Order of Trial Court was in accordance with law—Appellate Court remanded the case without any reason which would prolong the agony of the parties—Impugned order of Appellate Court was set aside and that of Trial Court was restored—Revision was accepted in circumstances.
2014 CLD 1636 Sh. ALTAN AZMAT vs. HABIB BANK LIMITED
Ss. 2(c), 2(d), 2(f), 5, 7, 9 & 22—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 55—Suit for declaration, along with mandatory injunction as a consequential relief, was filed by the appellant before the Banking Court claiming to be a benami owner of Deposit Growth certificate s purchased by him in the name of his mother and grandfather—Appellant sought a decree that he was the actual owner and holder of the Deposit Growth certificate s and was entitled to receive the entire amount of the certificate s along with the mark-up/interest, and a direction against the Bank to make the said payment—Banking Court disposed of the suit observing that as the certificate s were being claimed by the appellant to be in the names of his deceased relatives, therefore, the appellant should either obtain a succession certificate in respect of Deposit Growth certificate s or he may seek a decree for declaration from the court of competent jurisdiction on the ground that the appellant is a benami owner of these certificate s—Aggrieved of the order of the Banking Court, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court—Contention of the appellant was that he was within the jurisdiction of the Banking Court in terms of S. 7 of the Ordinance, therefore, the impugn order was against the law—Appellant further argued that initially he had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief before the Civil Court but the plaint was returned and upon the return of the plaint the appellant filed the suit before the Banking Court—Bank argued that no such fact as to the return of the plaint from civil court or an appeal filed against the order of the civil court was mentioned in the plaint before the Banking Court, however, such plea was being taken by the appellant for the first time in appeal—Bank contended that the suit filed by the appellant was not maintainable before the Banking Court—Validity—Accumulative effect of Ss.2(c), 2(d), 2(f) & 9 of the Ordinance was that where a customer or a financial institution committed a default in fulfilment of any obligation with regard to any finance, the financial institution or such as the case may be, the customer, may institute a suit in the Banking Court—Even if the argument of the appellant is accepted that Deposit Growth certificate s fall within the definition of finance as given in S. 2(d) of the Ordinance, it remained an undeniable fact that Deposit Growth certificate s were in the name of other individuals and not the appellant—Any Court or Tribunal, established under a special law, was a court of limited jurisdiction and all the jurisdictional facts must exist before invoking the jurisdiction of a special Court or a Tribunal—If any of the jurisdictional fact is missing, the assumption of jurisdiction by special Court would amount to defective or excessive exercise of jurisdiction—Appellant had failed to establish that he was a “customer” as defined in S.2(c) of the Ordinance—Suit under S. 9(1) of the Ordinance was only maintainable by a customer if a financial institution committed a default in fulfillment of any obligation with regard to any finance—To attract jurisdiction of the Banking Court under S. 9 of the Ordinance, the Appellant had to establish that he was a customer but in the present case the Deposit Growth certificate s were in the names of other persons and it was rightly observed by the Banking Court that the appellant should either obtain succession certificate from the competent court of law or he may seek a decree for declaration to the effect that the appellant was a benami owner of the said certificate s from the Court of plenary jurisdiction—Decree for declaration to the effect that the appellant be declared a benami owner of the Deposit Growth certificate s cannot be passed by the Banking Court established under S. 5 of the Ordinance—Section 7(1)(a) of the Ordinance though provides that in exercise of its civil jurisdiction the Banking Court shall have all the powers vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but subsection (1) of S. 7 of the Ordinance also provides that the Banking Court shall have these powers subject to the provisions of said Ordinance, meaning thereby, that at the first instance the appellant was to establish that all other jurisdictional facts exist to invoke the jurisdiction of the Banking Court, and where the Banking Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter, it shall, in that case, have all the powers vested in a Civil Court—Order of the Banking Court, thus, required no interference and was upheld—Appeal was dismissed by the High Court, in the circumstances.
2014 YLR 465 SHAFIQUE AHMAD vs. PUBLIC AT LARGE
Ss. 373 & 372—-Grant of succession certificate —-succession proceedings, scope of—Real brother of deceased intervened in succession proceedings putting his claim against the property and National Saving certificate s of the deceased—Objections of the intervener were overruled and succession certificate was granted in favour of legal heirs of deceased—- Validity— Objector/intervener was not a legal heir of the deceased and provisions of the succession Act, 1925 would therefore not be helpful to such a person—-Objector, in the present case, although was the real brother of the deceased, however he was considered a stranger in the proceedings for grant of succession certificate to the legal heirs of the deceased and would have no locus standi to join the proceedings since succession proceedings were limited in nature to the extent of determination of the rights of legal heirs of the deceased inter se and scope of such proceedings could not be enlarged to include settlement of disputed claims and determination of liabilities of legal heirs of the deceased—Revision was dismissed.
2014 MLD 1635 FAREED GUL ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN
S.372—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition—succession certificate —Successive applications—Scope—Son and widow of deceased filed two separate applications for issuance of succession certificate s—During pendency of proceedings for issuance of succession certificate s, three applications were filed one for consolidating both applications for issuance of succession certificate s, second for providing details of business and third for impleading other business partners as party—All three applications were dismissed by Trial Court against which widow filed two revision applications before Lower Appellate Court out of which one was dismissed whereas the other was allowed—Validity—During pendency of first revision application, widow filed second revision application concealing the filing of earlier revision application, and such facts were not adverted to by Lower Appellate Court—Subsequent revision application was not maintainable in view of the earlier revision application filed by same party challenging the same judgment on same cause of action—Subsequent revision application against the same judgment attacking different findings of the same judgment which were not assailed in earlier revision application by widow was not maintainable—Lower Appellate Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction was not justified to accept subsequent revision application filed by the widow—High Court set aside the order passed by Lower Appellate Court and subsequent revision application was dismissed—Petition was allowed accordingly.
2014 PLD 541 MUHAMMAD SHAF1Q
Ss. 278 & 376—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151—Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.), R.400—Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3—Intra Court Appeal—succession certificate , amendment of—Rules of procedure—Liberal construction, principle of—Letter of Administration for estate of deceased father of applicant was granted but two legal heirs of deceased had died before the estate could have been distributed among them-Applicant sought amendment of Letter of Administration but the same was declined by Single Judge of High Court-Validity-Rules of procedure were mere tools designed to expedite decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending in court—Such rules should not be applied in a very rigid technical sense and were to be used only to help in securing substantial justice-Strict and rigid application of rules, resulting in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided– Liberal construction of rules were to be invoked in situation where there was some excusable formal deficiency or error in pleading, provided that the same did not subvert essence of proceedings– Provisions contained in S. 376 of succession Act, 1925 and R. 400 of Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.) should have been liberally construed in order to promote their objective of ensuring just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceedings in such cases— Division Bench of High Court set aside order passed by Single Judge of High Court and remanded the matter to decide application under S.15i C.P.C. for seeking amendment of extended Letter of Administration under S.376 of succession Act, 1925—Mtra Court Appeal was allowed accordingly.
2014 PLD 500 KAMRAN MIRZA v.s. MOAZZAM MIRZA
Ss. 278 & 372—Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.), R.400—succession certificate /Letter of Administration, issuance of—Non contentious matter—Exemption from furnishing surety—Grant of succession certificate /Letter of Administration on personal bond—In non-contentious matters sureties need not be insisted by the court—Petition filed by applicant for issuance of succession certificate /Letter of Administration had been granted and directions were given by the court to issue the same—During proceedings of the petition and even after publication (inviting objections) in a daily newspaper, no objection had ever been filed by anyone—High Court directed that in such circumstances succession certificate /Letter of Administration should be issued to the applicant without insisting upon filing of sureties, however applicant should execute personal bond equal to the amount involved in the matter—Application was disposed of accordingly.
2014 PLD 290 MUHAMMAD NASEEM AHMAD v.s. Mst. SHAMA KHATOON
Ss. 192, 372 & 384—Central Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act (II of 1969) S.2(5)—Properties forming part of deceased’s “Tarka “— “Family “, scope of—Recovery of final “service dues “—Benevolent fund and group insurance—Widow of deceased filed application for issuance of succession certificate in her favour, in respect of final “service dues” of the deceased—Contention of the appellant was that the applicant/widow had not disclosed all legal heirs of the deceased in her application, as the deceased was survived by a wife and daughters, therefore, his brothers and sisters were also legal heirs—Validity—Amounts claimed by the wife in the succession Application were basically death benefits of the deceased, which he could not claim during his lifetime, and thus the same did not form part of his “Tarka “, and therefore, the same were not divisible among all legal heirs of the deceased-Amount in question, was therefore not inheritable by all his legal heirs, and was to be paid to the family of the deceased for their sustenance and maintenance—Case of the appellant was not that either he or any brothers/sisters of the deceased were residing with the deceased or were wholly dependent on him, therefore, they did not come within the ambit of definition of “family” given under S.2(5) of the Central Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969—Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
2014 CLC 1080 MUHAMMAD SALEEM v.s. PREMIER AGGLOW INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED.
- 151 & O. XXII, R. 3—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12—Suit for specific performance of contract—Refund of earnest money from the defendant—Inherent powers of court—Scope—Plaintiff filed suit wherein one of legal heirs on his death moved an application for refund of earnest money paid by his father to the defendant—Validity—Prayer for refund of earnest money was out of purview of the pleadings—Inherent powers under S.151, C.P.C. could not be stretched to change the complexion of a suit from the suit for specific performance of contract to the suit for refund of money—Legal heirs of the plaintiff had not been impleaded nor any application for the same had been moved—No material was on record whether applicant was the legal heir of the deceased—None of the legal heirs of deceased had authorized the applicant to claim/seek refund of earnest money from the defendant through court—Earnest money, if same was refundable, could not be refunded to the legal heirs unless they were impleaded in the suit or they produced succession certificate to claim the refund as legal heirs of the deceased—Application for refund of earnest money was dismissed in circumstances.
2014 CLC 981 ABDUL WAHAB v.s ABDUL RASHEED
Ss. 278 & 372—Letter of administration and succession certificate issuance of—Limitation—No limitation existed in matters of letter of administration and succession certificate .
2013 CLC 523 Haji SULTAN MEHMOOD v.s ZOHRA BIBI
- 387—Grant of succession certificate —Effect—Res judicata, principle of—Orders passed under the succession Act, 1925 did not operate as res judicata with regard to questions of title.
2013 CLC 523 Haji SULTAN MEHMOOD v.s. ZOHRA BIBI
Ss. 383, 387 & 372—Revocation of succession certificate —Procedure—Order passed under succession Act, 1925 or proceedings thereunder— Nature— Res judicata, principle of— Applicability—Scope—succession certificate was granted to appellant whereafter application of respondents under S.383 of the succession Act, 1925 for revocation of said succession certificate was allowed—Trial Court further held the surety of appellant under obligation to pay other legal heirs their share according to Islamic Law—Validity—Application for revocation of succession certificate had been filed after a lapse of three and a half years and said application had not been signed/thumb impressed by the respondents—Respondents, throughout the proceedings before the Trial Court, did not file any affidavit or lead any evidence in support of the contents of their application for revocation of certificate —While there was no time limit prescribed for filing an application for revocation of the certificate under section 383 of the succession Act, 1925 but at belated stage of the present case, revocation of the certificate on the basis of an incompetently filed application was unwarranted and same would not serve any lawful purpose as there were no more amounts lying in the accounts of the deceased—Order of Trial Court holding appellant’s surety under obligation to pay amount in case appellant failed to pay other surviving legal heirs of the deceased according to Sharaie Fatwa, was erroneous and Trial Court had travelled beyond scope of the succession Act, 1925—Under the succession Act, 1925; the Trial Court could neither determine the entitlement of legal heirs nor could direct payments of the same to the legal heirs—Grievance of the respondents in relation to their entitlement to shares in accounts of the deceased could only be redressed by a court of civil jurisdiction—Proceedings under succession Act, 1925 were summary in nature and no decree sheet capable of execution could be drawn during the same—Under S.387 of the succession Act, grant of certificate did not establish title to the amounts drawn and same did not disentitle the respondents to bring any claim before civil court in respect of their share of inheritance—Orders passed under the succession Act, 1925 did not operate as res judicata with regards to questions of title—High Court set aside order of Trial Court and dismissed the application of respondents for revocation of succession certificate granted in favour of the appellant—Appeal was allowed accordingly.
2013 CLC 1834 Mst. MEHMOODA BEGUM v.s ZUBAIR AHMAD
- 5—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42—-Suit for declaration—Benevolent fund and group insurance—Inheritable right (Tarka)—Nominee, status of—Scope—succession certificate for recovery of provident fund was issued in favour of widow but for other service benefits Trial Court also included other legal heirs of deceased in decree—Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court was maintained by Lower Appellate Court—Validity—Nominee had no right to receive amount more than her entitlement—No right conferred upon nominee as full owner as legal heir under Sharia shares would be entitled to get their respective shares—Sole duty of nominee, if any, was to collect amount on behalf of all legal heirs entitled to it under law applicable to nominator—Nomination did not operate as gift or will, therefore, could not deprive other heirs of nominator who were entitled thereunder the law of succession applicable to deceased—Provisions of section 5 of Provident Funds Act, 1925, neither vested amount in nominee nor declared her to be the owner thereof, it had given right to receive amount and nothing else—High Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court, as no misreading or non-reading of evidence or any illegality or any material irregularity error or defect could be pointed out—Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
2013 CLC 395 MUHAMMAD SULEMAN v.s. PUBLIC-AT-LARGE
- 372—succession certificate , issuance of—Entitlement—Sisters as residuaries—Scope—Deceased was unmarried lady survived by two real sisters and sons of her paternal uncle’s sons—Sisters of deceased applied for issuance of succession certificate with regard to amount lying in her bank account and claimed the amount as residuary of deceased—Validity—For full sister becoming a residuary it was necessary that she must qualify the exceptions attached at Sl. No.6 of the table of residuaries in order of succession , provided under section 65 of Mohemmadan Law by D.F. Mulla—Sisters did not fulfil any exception, therefore, they being two in number would get 2/3rd share of inheritance, whereas 1/3rd would go to sons of her full paternal uncle’s sons—High Court directed Trial Court to issue succession certificate accordingly and set aside concurrent findings of fact by two Courts below—Revision was allowed accordingly.
2013 MLD 753 NIAZ FARAZ v.s State
- 372—succession certificate —Change of name of minor of legal heir in the certificate —After issuance of succession certificate share of applicant, who was a minor at that time, was deposited by the Nazir in her name in a profit bearing scheme—Applicant sought correction of her name on the grounds that at time of issuance of succession certificate she was known by her childhood name, which was subsequently changed by her mother—Validity—Applicant produced her Family Registration certificate , educational certificate s and record of National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) to establish that her name had been changed—Mother of applicant had sworn an affidavit that she changed the childhood name of applicant to her current name—Applicant was also present in court along with her original Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC)—No one had come forward to object to the identity of the applicant who was shown with her childhood name at the time of grant of succession certificate —Amount deposited in the profit bearing scheme was not substantial—Application was allowed and Nazir was directed to pay the deposited amount to the applicant on execution of personal bonds equivalent to the amount in question.
2013 CLC 406 AZIZ AHMED v.s HAKIMZADI
Ss. 373 & 372—-succession certificate —Procedure—Dispute over legal heirs—Applicant had filed application for succession certificate , which was dismissed on ground that civil court could only determine issues relating to status of legal heirs—Contention of the applicant was that even in case of dispute, succession certificate could still be granted under S.373, succession Act, 1925—Validity—Section 373 of the Act related to extent of share of an applicant and was irrelevant in present case—Proceedings under the succession Act, 1925 being summary in nature could not help in determining the issue of status of a party hence in the event of dispute regarding status of a party, the proper course would be for parties to approach the competent civil court for declaration of such disputed status and then resort to course provided under the succession Act, 1925—Applicant, in the present case, had claimed that one of the interveners who appeared in the proceedings and claimed to be legal heir was not the actual wife of the deceased and that the deceased had divorced one of his wives, which issues could not be determined in succession proceedings—Impugnedorder whereby parties had been directed to resort to civil court regarding determination of disputed issues did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity—Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
2013 CLC 406 AZIZ AHMED v.s HAKIMZADI
Ss. 373 & 372—succession certificate —Nominee is not entitled as owner of the amount subject-matter in the succession matters but is only a representative and legal, duty bound to receive the amount and distribute amongst legal heirs.
2013 CLC 370 Mst. RUKHSANA v.s. PROVINCE OF SINDH through Home Secretary
- 372— Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199— Constitutional petition—succession certificate obtained by concealing names of some of the legal heirs—Death of civil servant during service leaving behind a surviving widow (petitioner) having three children and seven other children from his pre-deceased wife—Obtaining of separate succession certificate by surviving widow and children of pre-deceased wife by suppressing each other’s certificate —Withdrawal of pay, benevolent fund, gratuity, G.P. fund, pension and other dues of deceased by surviving widow amounting to Rs.8,81,763 on basis of succession certificate showing four legal heirs of deceased including herself the only widow—Surviving widow’s claim for withdrawal of group insurance of deceased as her nominee—Validity—Surviving widow had obtained succession certificate on basis of false information by concealing names of seven surviving legal heirs of deceased, thus, she was not entitled to claim relief for not having come with clean hands—Surviving widow alone, according to rules, was not entitled to pensionary benefit of her deceased husband—High Court dismissed constitutional petition and directed authority to deposit amount of group insurance with Nazir and also directed surviving widow to deposit amount of Rs.8,81,763 (received by her from department) with Nazir, who would distribute the whole amount amongst legal heirs according to their legal shares.
2013 CLC 339 MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ
- 278—Letter of administration, petition for—Application under S.278 was allowed, and letter of administration was ordered to be issued, after which two legal heirs of the deceased died—Effect—Application for impleading heirs of deceased after order of issuance of Letter of Administration was passed—Applicant contended that letter of administration could not be issued without impleading legal heirs of the two deceased heirs—Validity—Contention that since Letter of Administration had not been issued therefore succession application be treated as pending was incorrect—Order on the succession application was final and conclusive and issuance of Letter of Administration was merely compliance of said order—No amendment in pleadings could be allowed in a disposed matter—Under the law of succession , it was not permissible that a common petition/application be entertained for grant of succession certificate /Letter of Administration pertaining to assets of more than one deceased person, irrespective of the fact that assets were inherited by them from the same person—Under succession Act, 1925, amendment or addition was permissible in case of subsequent discovery regarding other estate of deceased which could not be mentioned in the original succession petition—In case of death of any legal heir before issuance of Letter of Administration, legal heirs of such deceased person (legal heir) could not be made party or substituted in place of actual legal heir, and a fresh application for issuance of succession certificate is required to be filed in respect of deceased legal heir—Application for impleadment was dismissed, in circumstances.
2012 CLD 850 Syed SHAH PIR MIAN KAZMI v.s Mst. NELOFER (Widow)
Ss. 371, 372 & 373— Issuance of succession certificate —Bank account having endorsement of “either or survivor”—Islamic law—Inheritance—Applicability—Scope—Petitioner, and his son, who later on died, opened joint account in the bank, with clear instruction that account would be operated “either or survivor”—After death of son of the petitioner/joint account holder, respondents being legal heirs of deceased applied for issuance of succession certificate , which finally was issued to them being successors of the deceased—Validity—Claim of the petitioner/father of deceased, was that amount deposited in the account, did not come within the legacy of deceased; and that as per instructions and declaration of both account holders when joint accounts were opened, belonged solely to the petitioner—Petitioner had urged that he being survivor of the account holder, was legally entitled to receive the entire amount deposited in the banks—Deceased/son of the petitioner, before his death proceeded abroad and joint accounts were opened during the period when deceased was abroad and was earning handsome amount in Pound Sterling during those days—Amount in Pound Sterling was transferred in the joint account and nothing was on record suggesting that petitioner had any source of such great earnings and that he himself had deposited money in the suit accounts—Respondents/legal heirs of deceased had proved that all the amount was deposited from abroad in shape of Pound Sterling by the deceased—Petitioner had failed to prove that the amount was gifted in his favour by the deceased—Even in cases of nomination, nominee was not entitled to receive the entire amount of the deceased—Such nomination could not override provision of Islamic Law of inheritance—No legal heir could be deprived from receiving their respective share—Appellate Court had correctly appreciated the legal and factual aspect of the case—In absence of any illegality, irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence, revision petition against judgment of the courts below, was dismissed in circumstances.
2012 CLC 1536 ANWAR HAYAT v.s Mst. DURRE SAMIN
- 12(2)—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199—Constitutional petition—-Dismissal of application under S.12(2), C.P.C. without recording evidence—Scope—No element of fraud or misrepresentation due to compromise—Effect—Not necessary for the Trial Court to record pro and contra evidence in such circumstances—Dispute over property between legal heirs—Declaratory suit filed in the civil court against male legal heirs—Written compromise made between the heirs—Civil court granted decree in terms of the compromise—Subsequently legal heirs ‘D’ and ‘H’ (respondents) filed application under S.12(2), C.P.C, challenging the validity of the decree on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, which application was dismissed by the Trial Court without recording evidence by holding that compromise between the parties had been duly signed by the husbands of ‘D’ and ‘H’, who were duly nominated for such purpose—Revision petition filed against order of Trial Court was accepted and case was remanded to the Trial Court to decide the same by recording pro and contra evidence—Validity—Legal heirs D’ and ‘H’, through their husbands, had entered into a compromise with the other legal heirs by recording a joint statement for their due share in the inheritance and the suit was decreed in view of the terms of the compromise—Application filed by legal heirs D’ and ‘H’, in such circumstances, had been rightly dismissed by the Trial Court—Other legal heirs had approached the competent court for grant of succession certificate , wherein D’ and ‘H’ were again represented by their husbands and admitted the genuineness of the compromise—Not necessary for the Trial Court to record pro and contra evidence when there appeared to be no element of fraud and misrepresentation—Intention of the legal heirs ‘D’ and ‘H’ was to drag the other legal heirs by filing frivolous applications—Impugned order of court below was not sustainable, in circumstance—Constitutional petition was accepted, impugned order of court below was set aside and that of the Trial Court was restored.
2012 PLD 101 Syed SHAH PIR MIAN KAZMI v.s Mst. NELOFER (widow)
Ss. 371, 372 & 373—Issuance of succession certificate —Bank account having endorsement of “either or survivor”—Islamic law—Inheritance—Applicability—Scope—Petitioner, and his son, who later on died, opened joint account in the bank, with clear instruction that account would be operated “either or survivor”—After death of son of the petitioner/joint account holder, respondents being legal heirs of deceased applied for issuance of succession certificate , which finally was issued to them being successors of the deceased—Validity—Claim of the petitioner/father of deceased, was that amount deposited in the account, did not come within the legacy of deceased; and that as per instructions and declaration of both account holders when joint accounts were opened, belonged solely to the petitioner—Petitioner had urged that he being survivor of the account holder, was legally entitled to receive the entire amount deposited in the banks—Deceased/son of the petitioner, before his death proceeded abroad and joint accounts were opened during the period when deceased was abroad and was earning handsome amount in Pound Sterling during those days—Amount in Pound Sterling was transferred in the joint account and nothing was on record suggesting that petitioner had any source of such great earnings and that he himself had deposited money in the suit accounts—Respondents/legal heirs of deceased had proved that all the amount was deposited from abroad in shape of Pound Sterling by the deceased—Petitioner had failed to prove that the amount was gifted in his favour by the deceased—Even in cases of nomination, nominee was not entitled to receive the entire amount of the deceased—Such nomination could not override provision of Islamic Law of inheritance—No legal heir could be deprived from receiving their respective share—Appellate Court had correctly appreciated the legal and factual aspect of the case—In absence of any illegality, irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence, revision petition against judgment of the courts below, was dismissed in circumstances.
2012 CLC 1776 NASIM BEGUM v.s FARAH ABSAR
Ss. 384 & 383— succession certificate — Revision—Maintainability—Application of the respondent-Bank for amendment in its written reply in relation to the Bank Account of the deceased was allowed by the Trial Court—Said order of Trial Court was assailed by the petitioners—Contention of the respondent Bank was that revision against said order was not maintainable—Validity—Proceedings under the succession Act, 1925, even if carried out by Civil Court, were always deemed to be proceedings before the District Judge—Right of appeal was available under section 384(1) of the succession Act, 1925 in cases of granting , refusing or revoking of a certificate ; whereas by virtue of section 383(3) the High Court was provided the right to entertain revision from an order of District Judge in cases other than the ones mentioned in section 384(1), succession Act, 1925—Revision was therefore, competent.
2012 YLR 2859 FAWWAD SHAFI v.s State
Ss. 278 & 372—Letter of Administration and succession certificate , issuance of—Petitioner sought issuance of Letter of Administration/succession certificate in respect of estate left behind by his deceased mother—Notice was served on all legal heirs of deceased and on general public through advertisement published in a daily newspaper—No one appeared from any quarter to raise any objection—All legal heirs of deceased had executed special power of attorney in favour of petitioner rand also filed their affidavits of no objection to the grant of Letter of Administration in favour of petitioner—Two independent witnesses had fled their affidavits stating therein that they knew the family of deceased well and affirmed that legal heirs of deceased mentioned in the present petition were the only legal heirs of deceased—High Court, in circumstances, directed office to issue Letter of Administration in favour of petitioner subject to rules.
2012 YLR 1752 ESTATE AND ASSETS OF LATE ABDUL GHANI
S.372—Application for succession certificate —After succession miscellaneous application was granted, the amount was distributed amongst the petitioner (wife) and two legal heirs; son and daughter—Contention of the applicant was that the son was allegedly not the real son of the deceased as his name was not mentioned in the affidavit of the petitioner-wife of the deceased before the Official Assignee—-Validity—High Court directed the son to appear before the Hospital along with the petitioner for the purpose of DNA test to ascertain whether or not he was real son of the petitioner and was entitled to the succession amount; and the expenses for said test were to be paid by the applicant.
2012 PLD 284 ZIAUDDIN
S.372—succession certificate , issuance of—Necessary documents—Heirship certificate and From B issued by NADRA was demanded from applicant—Validity—Held, there was no statutory requirement to insist legal heirs to submit Form B or heirship certificate along with petition either for succession certificate or letter of administration—Before grant of certificate , court for its own satisfaction could call affidavits of no objection of all legal heirs, affidavits of two witnesses who also appeared in court with legal heirs and confirmed veracity of petition including list of surviving heirs—If a person before his death failed to intimate NADRA or failed to fill Form B, it did not mean that after his death, no succession certificate could be issued to legal heirs due to non-completion or fulfilment of such requirement and right of inheritance would be neither suspended nor snatched away only for such reasons alone—Court was to decide and in case of any reasonable doubt, dispute or contention, it could make necessary inquiry so that rights of deserving person might not be affected—In the present case, all necessary requirements were fulfilled, nobody came forward to oppose the petition nor filed any objection in spite of issuing notices and publication in newspaper—All legal heirs also filed their affidavits of “no objection” and there was no impediment or legal disability to grant of succession certificate —Petition was allowed in circumstances.
2012 PLD 34 KHALIDA BEGUM v.s MUHAMMAD RASHID KHAN
Ss. 372 & 373—Petition for issuance of succession certificate —Deceased having died issueless, his step brothers and sisters claimed ,that they being legal heirs of the deceased were entitled to receive. property left by the deceased; and they filed petition for issuance of succession certificate in their favour—Said petition was objected to by the widow and real sister of the deceased alleging that step brothers and sisters of the deceased being uterine, were not entitled to inheritance of the deceased; and they also filed petition for issuance of succession certificate in their favour—Trial Court consolidated both the petitions and disposed of those determining the shares of the parties according to sharia—Widow and real sister of the deceased though had conceded that they were granted their respective shares, strictly according to the Injunctions of the Holy Quran as well as Islamic law, but contended that step brothers and sisters of the deceased, who were uterine were not entitled to residuary shares which returned to real sister of the deceased—Validity—Step brothers and sisters of the deceased, were not uterine brothers and sisters, but in fact consanguine brothers of sisters—Consanguine brothers and sisters were not excluded from inheritance and they could not be deprived from inheritance under law—Impugned judgment which was passed by the Trial Court in accordance with injunctions and principles, needed no interference by the High Court.
2012 PTD 469 MUHAMMAD EHSAN MEHBOOB v.s SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Complaint against arbitrary curtailment of quantitative entitlement certificate and delay in its issuance—Complainant i.e. manufacturer of Welded Pipes was issued quantitative certificate for 10,000 Metric Tons of ‘input goods’/Hot Rolled Steel Coils—certificate was issued after intervention by Federal Tax Ombudsman—Subsequently, on fresh application, after eleven reminders, a provisional quantitative entitlement certificate for import of only 5,800 tons of input goods in next year was issued—Department had not come up with any cogent reason as to why the complainant’s 10 reminders in rapid succession failed to get a response; and why in the eleventh reminder, the entitlement certificate was issued for 5,800 Metric Tons as against 10,000 Metric Tons for the previous year—Manufacturers, could not plan their production cycle properly when they were not assured a guaranteed supply of input goods; if they had to face bottlenecks in the supply of essential inputs, it was bound to have adverse effect on their efficiency and profitability—Delay in issuance of entitlement certificate and curtailment of sanctioned limit, was tantamount to maladministration under S.2(3) of Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000—Federal Board of Revenue, was recommended to direct the Chief Commissioner to give the complainant, personal hearing with a view to arriving at a just and fair resolution of the issues involved; to streamline the procedure for the issuance of entitlement certificate s and to notify parameters for objective appraisal of a registered person’s requirements for input goods; and report compliance with 30 days.
2011 PLD 355 MUHAMMAD AKRAM BHATTI v.s Mst. GHULAM SUGHRA
Ss. 278 & 372—succession certificate —Defence Saving certificate s—Nominee, status of—Petitioners sought succession certificate on the ground that they were nominated by their deceased predecessor-in-interest, while respondents claimed their share under Islamic Law—In view of specific nomination in favour of petitioners, Trial Court issued the certificate in their favour to the exclusion of respondents—Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and held the respondents also entitled to their legal shares in the amount of Defence Saving certificate s—Validity—Lower Appellate Court, before whom the matter was taken up by respondents after relying upon the judgments passed by Supreme Court, rightly declared that effect of nomination made by deceased predecessor-in-interest in favour of specific nominees was only for the purpose of receiving the amount under Defence Saving certificate s Scheme but distribution of the amount had to be made in accordance with the respective legal shares amongst all legal representatives of the deceased—Judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court was perfectly in accordance with law and the same called for no interference—Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
2011 CLD 1594 STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN v.s. FAISAL TAHIR
- 381— Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 124—succession certificate —Presumption of death—Insurance claim—Legal heirs filed application for issuance of succession certificate on the ground that their predecessor-in-interest was kidnapped 12 years ago and his whereabouts were not known, therefore, he should be presumed to be dead—succession certificate issued by Trial Court in favour of legal heirs was maintained by Lower Appellate Court—Insurance company assailed the certificate on the plea that insurer could not pay the claim unless it was established that the insured had died—Validity—After elapse of 12 years no one had claimed that he had seen the insured person and insurance company was not claiming that it had evidence about fact that the insured was alive—It was a proven fact that insured was dead, insurance policy was covered against death of insured and as such insurance company was bound to pay insurance claim to legal heirs of insured in terms of succession certificate issued by competent court of law—Insurance claim had matured from the date of expiry of seven years which commenced from the date of kidnapping—High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in succession certificate issued by the courts below and insurance company was bound to pay the insurance claim to legal heirs of insured—Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
2011 PLD 192 Mst. SAMINA SIKANDAR v.s PUBLIC-AT-LARGE
- 373—succession certificate —Purpose of grant of succession certificate —Scope.
2011 CLC 1959 STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN v.s. FAISAL TAHIR
- 381—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.124—succession certificate —Presumption of death—Insurance claim—Legal heirs filed application for issuance of succession certificate on the ground that their predecessor-in-interest was kidnapped 12 years ago and his whereabouts were not known, therefore, he should be presumed to be dead—succession certificate issued by Trial Court in favour of legal heirs was maintained by Lower Appellate Court—Insurance company assailed the certificate on the plea that insurer could not pay the claim unless it was established that the insured had died—Validity—After elapse of 12 years no one had claimed that he had seen the insured person and insurance company was not claiming that it had evidence about fact that the insured was alive—It was a proven fact that insured was dead, insurance policy was covered against death of insured and as such insurance company was bound to pay insurance claim to legal heirs of insured in terms of succession certificate issued by competent court of law—Insurance claim had matured from the date of expiry of seven years which commenced from the date of kidnapping—High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in succession certificate issued by the courts below and insurance company was bound to pay the insurance claim to legal heirs of insured—Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
2011 PLD 382 Mst. SHADAB PERVEZ v.s Mst. AMBREEN PERVEZ
Ss. 218, 278 & 372—Sindh Chief Court Rules (OS), Rr.393 & 407—succession certificate and letter of administration, grant of—Deceased having left legal heirs including a minor—Prayer for issuance of such certificate and letter to an officer of court to obtain details of properties of deceased, sell same and distribute sale proceeds thereof amongst legal heirs according to Shariah—Validity—Administrator would be obliged to administer estate of deceased by way of transfer and/or distribution in favour of all legal heirs—Administrator could not sell property under administration without permission of court—Person to be issued letter of administration had to execute administration bond—Misapplication of estate of deceased by Administrator or his neglect, if any, would make him liable for damages or loss—Person to be issued succession certificate would be required to submit personal bond with one or more sureties or other sufficient securities for rendering an account of debts or securities received by him—One of legal heirs in the present case was minor—Court in case of minor would be more cautious and obliged to protect his interest—Neither any officer of court could be issued such letter and certificate within meaning of succession Act, 1925 nor could be imposed upon him any responsibility or liability involved in administration of estate of deceased nor could he be made subsequently accountable for any person interested in such estate in future or involve him in litigation—No apparent dispute existed between legal heirs, while some of them were competent to manage such affairs—Officer of court could not be appointed as an Administrator of estate of deceased—High Court dismissed both such applications in circumstances.
2011 CLC 198 Mst. ANESA YAR’MUHAMMAD Daughter of Dr. YAR MUHAMMAD
Ss. 263, 278, 282 & 374—Petition for letter of administration of property and succession certificate —Objection application—Counsel for objector in his application had alleged that property in question had fraudulently been shown in the schedule of property in the main petition, which should have been excluded; and that an appropriate action could be initiated under S.282 of succession Act, 1925 for allegedly committing fraud and breach of trust—Counsel for objector prayed that the grant of letter of administration should be annulled by way of its suspension without holding any inquiry or adducing evidence—Validity—Held, at such stage it could not be said that whatever the objector was stating was true; and the entire proceedings should be reversed—Whatever course could be resorted to as a remedy under the facts and circumstances, would ultimately require inquiry and evidence—Objector, in circumstances, could file appropriate application for annulment in accordance with law, subject to there being prima facie evidence in his favour to support such plea.
2011 PLD 108 Mst. UZMA REHMAN v.s PUBLIC-AT-LARGE
Ss. 371 & 384—Grant of Letter of Administration—Jurisdiction—Scope—Deceased husband of applicant who was residing at place, K had left movable and immovable properties at K as well as at place K—Earlier, a succession certificate was granted on application filed at place K however application for grant of Letters of Administration for immovable property left by the deceased at place L was dismissed on ground that property in question was situated at place L and applicant should approach the court having jurisdiction—Under S.371 of succession Act, 1925 jurisdiction lay with the court where the deceased ordinarily resided—In the present case succession certificate had already been granted by the court at place K which established that the deceased resided at place K at the time of his death—No justification was available for the court at place K to dismiss the application for grant of Letter of Administration in respect of the property left by the deceased at place L—Impugned order was set aside and court was directed to proceed, with the matter accordingly.
2010 CLC 791 MUHAMMAD MANAWAR v.s NAZIR AHMAD
Ss. 371 & 372—Dismissal of application for grant of succession certificate and such dismissal was upheld by the Appellate Court—Validity—Evidence produced by the respondent had proved that petitioner had divorced deceased (lady) in her life time—Trial Court had rightly dismissed application of the petitioner which was upheld by Appellate Court—Counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the judgments and decrees of both the courts below warranting interference by High Court in the revisional jurisdiction.
2010 CLC 219 Mst. FAUZIA NOUREEN v.s MUHAMMAD ASGHAR
Ss. 278 & 372—Dues of deceased government servant—Distribution—Group insurance—Deceased was employee of police department, who died issueless and survived with widow, mother and father—Trial Court issued succession certificate with direction to disburse amount in accordance with rules and regulations of police department but Lower Appellate Court modified the certificate to disburse the amount in. accordance’ with Muslim shares—Validity-Out of total amount, sum payable as Group Insurance was not to be part of estate of deceased, therefore, such amount was exclusively payable to widow if duly nominated by deceased—High Court directed that remaining amount was payable to family of deceased and would be distributed accordingly amongst parents and widow—Revision was allowed accordingly.
2010 MLD 1433 MUHAMMAD SOHAIL SIDDIQUI v.s Mst. PARVEEN alias MUNNI
S.372—`Debts’ and `Securities’—Connotation—Word `debts’ in S.372 of succession Act, 1925, means such amounts of deceased lying with any bank—Word `securities’ is referable to common securities which generated profits in shape of dividends any saving certificate issued by government, the bank or any other financial institution—Letters of Administration in respect of any estate give right to administer it and release the respective share to legal heirs.
2010 MLD 1433 MUHAMMAD SOHAIL SIDDIQUI v.s Mst. PARVEEN alias MUNNI
Ss. 278, 299, 372 & 384—West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S.9—succession certificate and Letter of Administration–Consolidation of proceedings—Pecuniary jurisdiction—Two separate proceedings were initiated one for grant of succession certificate and the’ other for Letters of Administration in respect of immovable property—Both the proceedings were consolidated and by adding up the value of immovable property, rash and saving certificate s, the Trial Court concluded that the pecuniary jurisdiction of two subject-matters had exceeded its pecuniary jurisdiction and the same was returned for presentation in High Court—Validity—succession certificate was meant for movable property i.e. debts and securities and Letters of Administration for immovable property—succession of immovable property was regulated by Law of country in which person had his domicile at the time of his death and succession of immovable property in Pakistan of a person deceased was regulated by Law of Pakistan wherever such person might have had his domicile at the time of his death—Grant of succession certificate and Letter of Administration were not only governed by separate sections but under separate Chapters under succession Act, 1925—Petition for Letters of Administration under S.278 of succession Act, 1925, could be made for administration of assets belonging to deceased which were likely to come to petitioner’s hand whereas succession certificate which was granted to petitioner under S.372 of succession Act, 1925, was made in respect of debts and securities left by deceased—Application for succession certificate could be made in respect of debt or debts due to deceased creditor or in respect of portions thereof which implied that more than one applications for grant of succession certificate could be made—Legal heir could make a consolidated claim by including assets and debts and securities in the same application and if resultantly the valuation had exceeded amount of Rupees Thirty Lacs, the same would have been filed before High Court—Such was true for Karachi only where pecuniary jurisdiction of District Judge had been limited to Rupees thirty Lacs under West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962—High Court set aside the order passed by Trial Court and remanded the matter for adjudication of two applications separately and speedily in accordance with law—Appeal was allowed accordingly.
2010 PLD 153 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH v.s Javed Iqbal Ghaznavi
Ss. 278 & 372—succession —Post retirement benefits—Entitlement—succession certificate and letter of administration—Deceased was employee of bank and died issueless, leaving behind mother, one widow, one brother and four sisters—Controversy was with regard to distribution of movable and immovable assets left by the deceased among his all legal heirs—Validity—Any financial benefit which an employee could claim from his employer in his lifetime and had also become payable in his lifetime was to be treated as absolute right of employee and if any benefit or any part of it remained unpaid during his lifetime then the same would become heritable and was to be distributed among all his heirs—Service benefit of an employee, which had not fallen due in his lifetime and being a grant or concession on the part of employer of whatever amount, the same would become payable after the death of employee to be distributed only to those members of family who were entitled for the same as per rules and regulations of service—It was the discretion of employer to make rules and regulations in relation to any grant or concession that was intended to give to an employee or after his death to any member of his family—Benefits such as special retirement benefits, special compensation, group insurance under term insurance policy and group insurance under provident fund policy benefits definable as grants and concession on the part of employee and payable after the death of employee could not be treated as heritable by all heirs of employee but were to be distributed to those who were entitled to it under the rules and regulations of service provided by employer—High Court directed to distribute the assets of deceased accordingly.
2009 CLD 1685 Mrs. KAUSAR NAZLI
S.127—succession Act (XXXIX of 1925), Ss.373 & 383—Application for revocation of succession certificate —succession certificate was granted by High Court in respect of cash and securities left by the deceased—In the schedule of properties two amounts, one was to the tune of US$ 57,000 while other US$ 144,000, which were payable by the owner of the ship according to Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 2001—High Court by order directed Nazar of the Court to collect both said amounts—Under S.383 of the succession Act, 1925, petition had been filed. by the owner of the ship for revocation of succession certificate issued in favour of the petitioner/legal heir of the deceased—First amount of US$ 57,000 was not disputed, whereas second one for US$ 144,000 was disputed, which could be granted through petition; however, if there was any contentious amount, civil court had power to adjudicate upon the claim after recording evidence of both the parties—Petition under succession Act, 1925 was. not proper forum to adjudicate the said issue—Earlier order passed by the High Court was modified and Nazir of the Court was directed to collect undisputed amount US$ 57,000 from the owners of the ship—It would be open for the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings for recovery of second amount of US$ 144,000 before the proper forum in separate recovery proceedings.
2009 YLR 2181 Mst. NURULSUBAH
Ss.278 & 372—Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority Order (P.O. 7 of 1980), Art.5—succession certificate and letter of administration—Transfer of immovable property—Applicant was legal heir of deceased and Defence Housing Authority directed her to obtain letter of administration before transfer of property in the name of all legal heirs—Validity—High Court directed Defence Housing Authority to take care of transfer of property of deceased in the names of legal heirs by calling two witnesses of repute who knew the deceased and thereafter to retain property for a considerable period depending on circumstances of each case without its further transfer—High Court also directed that before transfer in the name of legal heir, a public notice might be published in newspapers at the cost of applicant like High Court does in matters of letter of administration—High Court further directed that since several petitions were being filed for letter of administration in respect of properties in Defence Housing Authority and counsel as well as petitioners had shown their ignorance about the rules of transfer, therefore, Defence Housing Authority after amending its rules might publish the same in newspapers of the city to facilitate general public—High Court directed the applicant to approach Defence Housing Authority for mutation—As there was no impediment in grant of succession certificate in favour of applicant, therefore, the same was issued according to rules—Application was allowed in circumstances.
2009 YLR 1428 Mst. FAREEDA AMIR v.s MOTHER OF DARA FEROZE MIRZA
S.372—Petition for grant of succession certificate —Petitioner, who was one of the sisters of deceased, had filed petition for grant of succession certificate in respect of the properties left by her deceased brother–Deceased, who was unmarried left two sisters as his legal heirs—Deceased belonged to Shia Sect of Islam and was governed by his personal law—Other sister of the petitioner had no objection if petition for grant of succession certificate was granted in favour of the petitioner as prayed—Two independent witnesses had verified on oath that deceased had no other legal heir except his said two sisters—Deceased had left no will—All legal formalities in respect of grant of succession certificate had been completed by the office—No objection had come from any quarter—In absence of any impediment in grant of succession certificate to the petitioner in respect of the properties shown in the Schedule of said properties, succession certificate was ordered to be issued according to rules in the name of petitioner.
2009 CLC 113 IFTIKHAR AHMED JATT v.s MUHAMMAD JAVED
- 372—succession certificate , grant of—Appeal to High Court–Appellant, employer of the deceased had approached the High Court as he had received directions from the Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for depositing an amount of Rs.200,000 payable as death compensation along with legal dues of deceased, within specified period—Employer/appellant had submitted memorandum of compliance of the order of High Court which had shown that a cheque for Rs.200,000 had been deposited with the Nazir of the High Court—Cheque was ordered by High Court to be forwarded to the court of District Judge who had granted the petition for grant of succession certificate to the respondent—Nazir of the High Court was directed to deposit the cheque of Rs.200,000 submitted before the Nazir of District Court for distributing the same to legal heirs of deceased accordingly.
2009 PLC(CS) 263 Dr. NASAR ULLAH v.s ABDUL MAJEED SOOMRO
S.372—West Pakistan Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1963, Rr.1.6(ii), 4.7, 4.9 & 4.10—Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act (II of 1969), S.2(5)—Inheritance (Tarka) of deceased—Determination—Legal heirs, entitlement—Deceased civil servant was issueless and was survived by husband, two brothers and two sisters—All legal heirs applied for succession certificate regarding gratuity, group insurance, pension, salary of earned leave and financial assistance of deceased civil servant—Trial Court granted certificate to all legal heirs and directed to distribute the amounts according to their shares—Plea raised by husband of deceased was that only salary of earned leave was Tarka of deceased which could be distributed among all legal heirs and rest of the amounts did not include in definition of Tarka and, therefore, brothers and sisters of deceased were not entitled to any share therein—Validity—Pension and gratuity could not be distributed among brothers and sisters of deceased as they were excluded under the provisions of Rr.4.9 & 4.10 of West Pakistan Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1963, from receiving share of pension and gratuity due to survival of husband of deceased civil servant—Appellant being surviving husband of deceased government servant was exclusively entitled to pension and gratuity, whereas brothers and sisters of the deceased were not entitled to receive the same—Amount of financial assistance by its nature did not fall within the definition of Tarka as it was not the asset of deceased in her life time but the same was grant of government, granted on the death of civil servant—High Court declared husband of deceased civil servant as entitled to receive gratuity, pension and group insurance exclusively—Brothers and sisters as well husband of deceased civil servant were entitled to have their share according to Sharia in salary of earned leave and financial assistance—High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, modified the order passed by Trial Court—Appeal was allowed accordingly.
2008 YLR 2699 ABDUL SATTAR v.s State
- 514—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3/4—Forfeiture of surety bond—Applicant stood surety for accused and executed surety bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000—Accused having failed to appear in the court on date of hearing, the Trial Court issued notice to applicant/surely under S.514, Cr. P. C., but prior to service of notice, applicant/surety died—Widow of the surety appeared before the court submitted that her husband had died and she was a poor lady and requested for return of the bond amount deposited by her deceased husband in the court, but the Trial Court did not agree with the submission of the widow and imposed penalty of half the amount of surety bond viz. Rs.2,50,000—Trial Court. further ordered that the remaining half amount along with interest be returned to the ‘widow of the applicant/surety—Validity—Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was not sustainable on two grounds; firstly that order of forfeiture of. surety bond was passed when surety was no more alive and same having been passed in violation of S.514(6), Cr.P.C., was not sustainable; secondly, penalty could be imposed upon the surety only when it was proved that absence of accused from the court was intentional and was not for the reason beyond the control of accused—In the present case it had come on record that accused was taken to U.S.A. and was detained there and he could not attend the court—Absence of accused being for the reason beyond his control, no penalty could have been imposed upon applicant/surety, even on that count—Impugned order was set aside with the direction that bail amount of Rs.5,00,000 lying in the court be paid to widow of the surety on production of succession certificate from the competent court of law.
2008 YLR 1256 ZUBAIDA KHALIQ v.s Mst. MEHMOODA SHARIF
Ss.273, 278 & 295—Issuance of Letter of Administration and grant of succession certificate —Objection to—Deceased was issueless and petitioners who being brothers and sisters were legal heirs of deceased, had claimed that deceased was married to respondent/objector in whose name deceased had purchased apartment in question and that thereafter she had gifted said apartment to the deceased—Petitioners had claimed that as deceased had divorced respondent/objector in his lifetime, letter of administration of property of deceased could be issued in favour of petitioners as deceased had died issueless—Respondent had claimed that intimation notice of her divorce having not been given to Chairman Arbitration Council, under S.7 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, she was not divorcee in the eyes of law as divorce had not become effective—Respondent had further contended that she had spent more than 40 years with the deceased as his wife and that deceased had pronounced divorce due to his old-age being issueless and under the influence of the petitioners and divorce was never acted upon by him—Matter being contentious one, under S.295 of succession Act, 1925, same could only be adjudicated upon by converting petition into civil suit—Petition was converted into civil suit accordingly.
2008 PLD 152 GOHAR HABIB v.s PUBLIC-AT-LARGE
- 373—Carriage by Air (International Convention) Act (IX of 1966), S.6—Application for issuance of succession certificate —Death in Aircraft accident—Compensation awarded by Airline company on account of death of deceased—Right of legal heirs of deceased to claim such compensation—succession certificate was issued to legal heirs of the deceased.
2008 CLC 47 Mst. SHAHIDA PERVEEN v.s NAMATULLAH KHAN
- 373—Application for issuance of succession certificate —Proceedings before the court dealing with the succession certificate s were summary in nature—Court was competent to issue succession certificate in favour of a person who, prima facie, was entitled to have succession certificate in his favour—Any contestant for succession certificate if raised some intricate question of law and facts, he was at liberty to get same resolved through a regular suit before civil court—Object, intent and purpose of S.373 of succession Act, 1925 was to deal with the application for succession certificate summarily and as provided in subsection (3) of S.373 of the, said Act, the court was competent to leave any intricate question arising before him for resolution of any right claimed by a legal heir.
2006 CLC 1855 Mst. MEHMOOD BIBI v.s SIRAJ DIN
—Ss. 5 & 372—Application for issuance of succession certificate —Petitioner, being widow of deceased, applied for grant of succession certificate regarding certain deposits of deceased in the Bank—Respondents who were parents of the deceased husband of petitioner resisted application of petitioner on the ground that petitioner was responsible for murder of her husband—Trial Court dismissed application of petitioner and appeal against dismissal order passed by Trial Court was also dismissed by Appellate Court—Validity—Petitioner having not been convicted so far in any criminal case, there was no impediment in her way to receive amount of her .share, which she had inherited—Petitioner would, in view of Sharia law become disentitled only, if it was proved that she was instrumental in murder/death of her husband—That being not the position in the case, Courts below were not justified in law in refusing petitioners requisite succession certificate —Impugned orders, were set aside in revision by High Court, in circumstances.
2006 CLC 1750 Mst. SHARIFAN BIBI through Special Attorney v.s ALLAH RAKHA
—S. 5—succession Act (XXXIX of 1925), S.273—Delay—Condonation—Delay of each day is to be explained—Delay in filing revision petition based on excuse that petitioner was an old lady of 85 years and that her co-petitioner had died was held not acceptable because mere old age could not be considered sufficient cause for condonation and as far death of co-petitioner was concerned same was also not supported by any documentary proof nor successors of deceased co-petitioner who were majors and parties to the present revision, had not explained each day’s delay—Contention that petitioners were not provided certified copies of the appellate decree sheet was repelled for three reasons firstly, that contention was not raised in application for condonation of delay, secondly Appellate Court was not obliged to prepare decree in an appeal filed against succession certificate and thirdly certified copies of memorandum of appeal were applied by petitioners after lapse of about 5 months—No sufficient cause for condonation of delay was made out.
2006 CLC 1750 Mst. SHARIFAN BIBI through Special Attorney v.s ALLAH RAKHA
–S. 115—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5 & 29(2)—succession Act (XXXIX of 1925), S.273—Revision—Limitation—Provisions of S.5, Limitation Act, 1908—Applicability—Petitioners filed application for succession certificate which was accepted by Trial Court but same was cancelled in appeal—Revision filed after 189 days was dismissed being time-barred and application for condonation of delay was refused– Validity—Section 29(2) of Limitation Act, 1908 provided that where any specific or local law prescribed a period of limitation different from the one prescribed by First Schedule annexed therewith, provisions contained in Ss.4, 9 to 18 & 22 of the Act would apply only if those were not expressly excluded by special or local law—Since S.115, C.P.C. prescribed its own period of limitation i.e. 90 days, benefit of S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 could not be availed unless same had been made applicable as per S.29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908.
2006 CLC 1189 IMTIAZ SHAMIM MUHAMMAD IRFAN-UL-HAQ
—S. 374—succession certificate , issuance of—Order of Appellate Court ,dismissing petitioners’ appeal against judgment/order of Trial Court allowing succession certificate filed by respondent in favour of petitioners and other respondents all being legal heirs of deceased owner—Petitioners had contended that original saving certificate s as well as Bank pass book being in custody of petitioners, they were exclusively entitled to have Saving certificate s encashed to the exclusion of respondents as deceased owner had gifted away. those certificate s to them which was evident by the fact that petitioner was appointed as a Nominee and that deceased had severed, all his relations with the other respondents because of their derogatory and disrespectful attitude towards him—Concept of nominee was alien to Islamic Law, according to which legal heirs were the only persons entitled to receive the property left by their father or husband and no Muslim heir could exclude other heir on the ground that he was holding Saving certificate s as a nominee—Nominee, if appointed, would not become the sole owner of the assets left by deceased, but he was only authorized to collect the amount from National Saving Centre or to hold property of deceased as an administrator and then to distribute same among all legal heirs—Nomination would not make nominee as donee nor nomination amounts to a gift in absence of delivery of possession of property gifted—Petitioners, in the present case, never raised the plea that other petitioner was ever appointed as nominee or amount under Saving certificate was ever gifted to her or them—Said petitioner could not claim herself as exclusive owner of amount under disputed Saving certificate s and two Courts below, while discarding her said claim, had neither committed any illegality nor irregularity, but had passed impugned orders in advancement of Islamic Law of Inheritance; whereunder all legal heirs of deceased had been declared entitled to receive property left by deceased according to their shares under Islamic Law of Inheritance.
2006 CLC 810 Mst. RASHIDA BANO v.s Mst. SAMINA YOUSAF
—S. 372—succession certificate , grant of—Commulative Deposit certificate s—Purchase of certificate s in joint names of mother (respondent) and deceased son—Applicant as widow claimed that certificate s were exclusively owned by deceased and respondent was a Benamidar—Respondent claimed to be exclusive owner of certificate s on the ground that at the time of their purchase, deceased was a student of 20 years age having no independent source of income; that she with her income earned from abroad purchased certificate s; and that she possessed the key of locker, wherein certificate s were locked by deceased—Proof—Nothing was available on record to show as to who out of two contributed to what extent and proportion—Both parties had failed to establish their independent and exclusive source of such purchase—Motive of Benami had not been proved by either party—Acquisition of assets by deceased after purchase of certificate s would have no retrospective nexus to prove his exclusive purchase and that respondent was a Benamidar—Money used for purchase of such certificate s being family money would be deemed and assumed to have been equally contributed by mother and son—certificate s were, held, equally owned by respondent and deceased, thus, were entitled to share equally the amount with interest accrued thereon-Respondent as mother would also be entitled to 1/6th share out of 1/2 share of her deceased son, while the remaining share would go to applicant.
2006 PLD 719 EHSAN ADEEL v.s PROVINCE OF PUNJAB
Succession —Nomination—Nominee of a deceased in presence of his legal heir was not entitled to inherit and receive the property whether movable or immovable as the case may be—Petitioner, father of deceased, filed application for obtaining succession certificate in respect of assets left by deceased—Said application was contested by respondent claiming himself to be the nominee of the deceased and thus entitled to said assets—Application of petitioner was accepted but order granting succession certificate was reversed in appeal—Validity—Nomination could not operate as a valid gift under Islamic Law as gift, in order to confer title on donee, must be accompanied by delivery of possession of property gifted while in the present case there could be no delivery of possession at the time the nomination was made—Nomination merely conferred a right to collect money and disburse the same to the legal heirs and since petitioner being father of deceased was admittedly alive at the time of death of deceased he was the only person entitled to claim disputed assets and nominee was not entitled to claim ownership with regard to the amount in dispute.
2006 CLC 1589 NASEEM AKHTAR alias LALI v.s KHUDA BUX PECHOHO
—-S. 371—Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act (II of 1969), Ss.2(5), 11, 14, 17 & 19—West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963, Rr.4.6 & 4.8(c)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.104—Application for grant of succession certificate in respect of legal monetary claims of deceased employee—Entitlement to monetary claims—Appeal against orders—Employee serving as Upper Divisional Clerk, died leaving behind her one son and two daughters–After death of said employee, her mother filed application for grant of succession certificate in respect of legal monetary claims to be paid by the department on death of deceased employee—Mother of deceased in her application pleaded that husband of deceased lady having divorced her in her life time, he was not entitled to get any share out of said claim—Husband of deceased claimed that he had never divorced the deceased lady and that she remained his wife till her death—Application of mother of deceased was finally dismissed holding that she could not prove that husband of deceased had divorced deceased lady and that mother of deceased lady had no right over the monetary legal claim payable on demise of said lady—Husband of deceased lady thereafter filed application for grant of succession certificate in respect of monetary claims which application was granted declaring husband of deceased alone to be entitled to receive monetary claims of deceased lady—Validity—Question of divorce allegedly pronounced by husband of deceased was considered and decided up to level of High Court in earlier round of litigation—Court below had rightly found that husband , had not divorced deceased lady—Husband was found to be entitled to certain legal monetary claims—Among said monetary claims, Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance, were to be regulated by Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969 and under provisions of Ss.14 & 19 of said Act, those two amounts were to be paid to a person or persons nominated by employee; in absence of any valid nomination made by deceased, said amount were to be paid directly to members of family of deceased for just and equitable utilization for the maintenance and benefit of all members of her family—Son and daughters of deceased who were major and married, were not living with husband of deceased—Grant from Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Fund would be paid to the husband—General Provident Fund which would come within preview of `Tarka’ of deceased would be inherited by all legal heirs of deceased—Pension and commutation was to be paid to family of deceased, under provisions of R.4.6 of West Pakistan Civil Servants Pensions Rules, 1963—Husband, one son and one unmarried daughter were entitled to said claim—Salary of 180 days of deceased would be paid to legal heirs of deceased according to Islamic Law.
2004 SCMR 1219 Malik SAFDAR ALI KHAN and another v.s PUBLIC-AT-LARGE and others
—-S. 373—National Savings certificate s Rules, 1990, Rr. 13, 15 & 16–succession certificate —National Savings certificate s purchased by Muslim deceased nominating his brother as nominee—Applicant (nominee) sought grant of succession certificate in his sole name for he being a nominee was entitled to receive payment of certificate s; and that widow and children of deceased belonging to Christian faith were not entitled to inherit his legacy—Trial Court grantee, succession certificate s to widow and children after finding them to be Muslims—Such judgment was upheld by Appellate Court and in revision by High Court–Validity—Widow and children though not formally represented at hearing had sent their reply to Court with supporting documents denying allegation regarding their faith–
2004 YLR 1244 SHIREEN BANO v.s D.J. CENTRAL
—-Ss. 370 & 384—Issuance of succession certificate regarding claim of group insurance of deceased—Amount of group insurance neither being `TARKA’ of deceased nor covering by terms `debit’ and `security’, but merely being a grant in favour of nominee of deceased, succession certificate in respect thereof could not be issued.
2003 SCMR 965 Dr. SALEEM JAVED v.s Mst. FAUZIA NASIM
Ss. 212, 213 & 214—succession certificate , grant of —Proceedings– -Locus standi—Charge on the property of deceased —Determination—Respondent claimed to have charge on the property of deceased by way of giving the amount to the deceased- for beneficial investment and safe custody—Trial Court declined to implead the respondent as party to the proceedings while the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction allowed the revision and the respondent was impleaded as party to the proceedings—Plea raised by the appellants was that the amount given by the respondent to the deceased was not a charge on the property of the deceased hence she could not be impleaded as party to the proceedings under Ss.212, 213 & 214 of succession Act, 1925—Validity— Respondent being not a legal heir of the deceased and also no Court had given any verdict in favour of the respondent’s claim as a charge on the property of the deceased, therefore the provisions of succession Act, 1925, would not .be helpful to the respondent to establish her claim to become a necessary party in the application for the grant of succession certificate to the appellants—Claim of the respondent without proper determination by the competent forum would ipso facto not a charge on the property of the deceased, therefore, the respondent neither had a locus standi to be impleaded as necessary party in the proceedings under succession s Act, 1925, nor could contest and oppose the grant of succession certificate to the legal heirs of the deceased—Court seized of the matter relating to the issue of succession certificate could not adjudicate the claim of the third person against the deceased for the satisfaction of such claim from his property—Respondent being stranger in the proceedings for grant of succession certificate to the legal heirs of the deceased would have no locus standi to be impleaded as party and allowed to join the proceedings—Order passed by High Court did not represent the correct legal position and the same was set aside by Supreme Court and the order passed by Trial Court was restored.
2002 SCMR 1544 Mst. JAMEELA AKHTAR v.s PUBLIC AT LARGE
Succession Act 1925 —-Ss. 372 & 373—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—succession certificate , grant of—Dispute as to a legal heir—Jurisdiction of Court–Scope—Petitioner denied the respondent as a second widow of the deceased—Nikahnama produced by the respondent contained different name and not of the respondent—Petitioner filed application before the Family Court for summoning record of Union Council to ascertain whether the Nikah was entered in the relevant register under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961—Trial Court without passing any order on the application issued the succession certificate which included the name of the respondent also—certificate issued by the Trial Court was maintained by the Lower Appellate Court and High Court—Plea raised by the petitioner was that without having a declaration from the Civil Court, the succession certificate could not have been issued in favour of the respondent—Validity—Nakah on which the respondent had placed reliance prima facie appeared to be a mutilated document as name of the bride was different and below that name, the name of the respondent had been written—Family Court in the present case while granting succession certificate to the respondent, should have directed that no share of the said amount would be paid to the respondent unless she would get a decree from Civil Court about her status as widow of the deceased—Such question could not be decided in summary proceedings–Supreme Court advised the respondent to get her status as widow of the deceased established by tiling a civil suit—Supreme Court directed that if the respondent succeeded in getting a decree, the amount already received by her under succession certificate might be retained by her and in case the suit was decided against her, the respondent would refund the amount to the other widow included in. the certificate and the other widow would distribute the refunded amount among the remaining heirs of the deceased—Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and orders passed’by the Courts below were set aside—Appeal allowed.
2002 YLR 3191 Mst. HALEEMA BIBI v.s FEDERATION
Ss.372 & 373—Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art.199—Constitutional petition–Grant of succession certificate —Accounts Officer had reported that the petitioner not only had managed to run away with entire amount of gratuity, but accumulated pension amount had also been taken away by her–Conduct of petitioner was gross contravention of order passed by Civil Judge and of the terms granting succession certificate to petitioner—High Court directed Civil Court to summon concerned parties including petitioner and to make an inquiry as to whether terms of order granting certificate had been violated and if so by whom and in what manner and also to take steps to remedy the breach so committed.
2002 CLC 808 LIAQUAT ALI Mst. HAYAT BI
Succession Act 1925 —-Ss. 264 & 372—Letter of administration and succession , grant of –Respondent relied on will duly executed in her favour by the deceased–Appellant alleged that the will was forged—Property in question was jointly allotted in the names of the deceased, his brother, his wife and his younger sister—Deceased was not the sole owner of property —Effect–Where the legal heirs of deceased had not given no objection to the, appellant in his favour, the issuance of letter of administration and succession certificate was rightly refused by the Trial Court as the, appellant was not the only surviving legal heir of deceased—High Court declined to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in succession appeal.
2001 CLC 101 ARIF MANSOOR AHMAD v.s ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Civil Procedure Code –Order I of C.P.C. Parties to Suits O. I, R.10 & O. XX, R. 13—succession Act (XXXIX of 1925), S.278— Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Constitutional petition–Administration suit—Impleading as necessary party to proceedings in the suit—Person not impleaded in proceedings for succession certificate , whether could be allowed to be impleaded in administration suit—Petitioner had invested some money in the business of the deceased and was not allowed to be impleaded in the proceedings for succession certificate —Trial Court, during the pendency of administration suit qua property of the deceased, impleaded the petitioner as a necessary party—-Lower Appellate Court reversed the order of the Trial Court for the reason that he was not allowed to join the proceedings for succession certificate —Validity— Petitioner had come out with a certain claim and the same could only be adjudicated upon if he had appeared before the Court as a ply and was allowed opportunity to substantiate his claim—Petitioner could not be non-suited for the reason that his application for being impleaded as a party to the proceedings for the grant of succession .certificate was disallowed—Trial Court had rightly allowed the petitioner to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings in administration suit- -Lower Appellate Court had erred in law in rejecting his application and setting aside the order of the Trial Court–Order passed by the Lower Appellate Court was illegal and the same was set aside in circumstances.
2001 CLC 101 ARIF MANSOOR AHMAD v.s ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Succession Act 1925 Ss. 278 & 273—Administration suit and grant of succession certificate proceedings—Distinction—In administration suit the claims of the respective claimants/contestants are to be decided on the basis of the material brought on record in support of their respective pleas—Scope of the two proceedings is quite distinct as proceedings for the certificate are of summary nature, whereas the other is a regular suit.
2001 YLR 348 ISHTIAQ AHMED v.s DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI-EAST
Sindh Local Government Ordinance 1979 —-Ss. 5(2), 371 & 372—Application for succession certificate in respect of immovable property of the deceased who had expired at Karachi—Territorial jurisdiction of Court—District Judge within whose jurisdiction any part of the property of deceased was lying could grant the certificate under S.371, succession s Act, 1925 but debt and securities in respect of which succession certificate had been sought were lying at Islamabad rendering S.371 of no help to the appellant—Court at Islamabad was the, proper Court in circumstances.
2001 YLR 347 MUHAMMAD NASEERUDDIN SHAIKH v.s AFSHAN SUBOOHI NASEER
Succession Act 1925 —-S. 372—Petition for grant of succession certificate by the widow of the deceased–Parents of the deceased had filed affidavit of no objection—Parents of the deceased appeared in Court and stated that they had no objection if the succession certificate was granted in favour of the widow of the deceased, subject to the condition that their shares would be paid to them—Petitioner had also been appointed as guardian ad litem for the minors—Matter being non-contentious, there was no impediment in grant of the certificate .
2000 YLR 2317 ARIF MANSOOR AHMED v.s FAYYAZ ALI
Succession Act 1925 —-Ss. 372 & 373—succession certificate — Proceedings—Determination of disputed question of fact in the proceedings– Petitioner claimed to be joint account holder of a Bank account of the deceased and filed an application before the Trial Court to impaled him as a party to the proceedings–Trial Court dismissed the application– Validity—Question involved related to the interest and entitlement of the petitioner and as such was a disputed question of fact—Such question could not be gone into 6y the Trial Court in the proceedings for grant of succession certificate —Petitioner could not be imp leaded in the proceedings and might have his remedy for determination of his interest or right in proper proceedings–Order .of Trial Court did not suffer from any illegality in circumstances.
2000 CLC 585 RUKHSANA KAUSAR v.s ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KHANEWAL
Succession Act 1925 Ss. 37, 373 & 384—succession certificate , issuance of —Procedure–Only a summary procedure is provided for issuance of succession certificate under S.373 of succession Act, 1925—If any person wants a detailed determination of rights, remedy lies in shape of suit filed under S.37, succession Act, 192.5—Where a person is dissatisfied or aggrieved by issuance of a succession certificate , and appeal under S.384, succession Act, 1925 lies.
1999 MLD 703 UMAR FAROOQ v.s SHAGUFTA NASREEN
Succession Act 1925 —-S. 370—Scope of 5.370, succession Act, 1925—“Securities”—Connotation–succession certificate —Bank lockers—Section 370 of succession Act, 1925 indicates that Bank lockers are not included within the meanings of the word “securities” and hence, those are not heritable like benevolent fund, group insurance and pension.
1999 PLC 266 MUHAMMAD ASHRAF v.s SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923 —-Ss. 8, 20 & 21—Compensation—Entitlement to receive whole amount o compensation—Person who neither had any relationship with decease employee nor was nominated by deceased as his exclusive legal heir fraudulently by producing fictitious or forged documents, posed to be son o deceased impersonated himself as sole heir or nominee of deceased and made claim for receipt of whole amount of compensation of deceased—Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation upheld claim of that person .to the exclusion of all three brothers and one sister of deceased—Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation did not allow the legal heirs of deceased to establish parallel claim and did not even wait for the result of move made by them before Civil Court for issuance of succession certificate , for which petition was pending before Civil Court—Commissioner for Compensation rejected request of real brother of deceased without giving any reason by merely observing that same had no merit—
1999 MLD 2738 ALLAH NAWAZ KHAN v.s FARIDA FATIMA KHANUM
Succession Act 1925 —-S. 373—succession certificate , grant of—Procedure—Court has to deal with the matter summarily leaving aside the intricate question of law and facts and only issue certificate to such person who has a prima facie case of entitlement to the same—While granting certificate to the person who had prima facie title, the Trial Court would leave the other person to establish his right by a regular suit.
1999 MLD 1481 FATEH MUHAMMAD v.s ARSHAD AFZA
Succession Act 1925 —-S. 372—Application for succession certificate for a portion of assets of deceased—Validity—Where successor of deceased in his application for succession certificate had left out any portion of assets of deceased that, by itself, could not be a ground for refusing issuance of succession certificate regarding assets mentioned in application for succession certificate — Application for succession certificate regarding portion of estate of deceased was competent in law and applicant could not be forced to include entire assets of deceased in application for succession certificate .
1999 MLD 1481 FATEH MUHAMMAD v.s. ARSHAD AFZA
Succession Act 1925 —-Ss. 372 & 373—succession certificate , object of—Object of succession certificate was to provide speedy remedy and quick decision in succession matters so that legal heirs of deceased could have their share in movable assets, ascertained, allocated and disbursed—Object of following summary procedure as laid down in S.373 of succession Act, 1925, was also indicative that Court proceeding with application of succession certificate , was to look into the prima facie right of applicant in issuing succession certificate —Intricate questions would be kept aside and succession certificate should be issued, keeping in view the said object of law.
1999 CLC 806 MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ: UMRA BEVI
Succession Act 1925 —-S. 372—succession certificate , issuance of—General Provident Fund and Gratuity of the deceased—Both were in the nature of “Tarka” the same would go to the legal heirs of the deceased—Real sister of the deceased being the only legal heir of the deceased was entitled to such amount.
1999 PLC(CS) 793 MUHAMMMAD MUMTAZ v.s. UMRA BEVI
Succession Act 1925 —-S. 372—succession certificate , issuance of—General Provident Fund and Gratuity of the deceased—Both were in the nature of “Tarka” the same would go to the legal heirs of the deceased—Real sister of the deceased being the only legal heir of the deceased was entitled to such amount.
1999 YLR 224 SHAMIM AKHTAR KHAN v.s MUHAMMAD YAQOOB ZAFAR
Succession Act 1925 —-S. 373— succession certificate –Application for issuance of succession certificate has to be disposed of in a summary manner through a summary enquiry and difficult and intricate questions of law and facts should not be resolved by Court while considering such application—Such questions should only be resolved by Civil Court of competent jurisdiction—Question with regard to execution of “will” by deceased account-holder before his death and impleading a person in whose favour said “will” was allegedly executed, as party, were not questions which could be determined in a summary manner, but could be decided by competent Civil Court after detailed enquiry.
1998 PLD 59 SHARIFAN v.s FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Constitution of Pakistan 1973 S. 10 & Sched.—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.25 & 199–Constitutional petition—Private International Law—Grant of citizenship of Pakistan to aliens—Essentials—Concession available to alien women and not to male aliens—Effect—Alien women who were married to citizens of Pakistan would be entitled on making application therefor to Federal Government in prescribed manner, and on obtaining certificate of domicile and taking oath of allegiance in the form set out in the Schedule to the Pakistan Citizenship Act to be registered as citizens of Pakistan—Such special concession, was however, available to alien women and not to male aliens—No discrimination was spelt out in such a case—Article 25 of the Constitution was available to citizens only a and not to non-citizens–No claim, could, therefore, be laid for the grant of citizenship by or on behalf of petitioner, an Indian citizen who by marrying Pakistani female, was claiming citizenship on basis of. Art.25 of the Constitution—Even otherwise, if Legislature thought fit to grant concession of law in favour of women that would not be a discriminatory measure—Article 25 of the Constitution envisaged preferred position of women whereby special provisions for their protection could be made by the State—Provision of S.10, Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 was enacted on the basis of position of women under Private International Law—While domicile of origin was received by operation of law at birth, domicile of choice was acquired by actual removal to another country accompanied by his animus manendi—Section 16, succession Act, 1925 has laid down that woman would acquire domicile of her husband by marriage if she did not have same domicile before marriage—Petitioner being alien male having married to female from Pakistan was not entitled to citizenship of Pakistan.–[Private International law].
1998 PLD 59 SHARIFAN v.s FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951 S. 10 & Sched.—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.25 & 199–Constitutional petition—Private International Law—Grant of citizenship of Pakistan to aliens—Essentials—Concession available to alien women and not to male aliens—Effect—Alien women who were married to citizens of Pakistan would be entitled on making application therefor to Federal Government in prescribed manner, and on obtaining certificate of domicile and taking oath of allegiance in the form set out in the Schedule to the Pakistan Citizenship Act to be registered as citizens of Pakistan—Such special concession, was however, available to alien women and not to male aliens—No discrimination was spelt out in such a case—Article 25 of the Constitution was available to citizens only a and not to non-citizens–No claim, could, therefore, be laid for the grant of citizenship by or on behalf of petitioner, an Indian citizen who by marrying Pakistani female, was claiming citizenship on basis of. Art.25 of the Constitution—Even otherwise, if Legislature thought fit to grant concession of law in favour of women that would not be a discriminatory measure—Article 25 of the Constitution envisaged preferred position of women whereby special provisions for their protection could be made by the State—Provision of S.10, Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 was enacted on the basis of position of women under Private International Law—While domicile of origin was received by operation of law at birth, domicile of choice was acquired by actual removal to another country accompanied by his animus manendi—Section 16, succession Act, 1925 has laid down that woman would acquire domicile of her husband by marriage if she did not have same domicile before marriage—Petitioner being alien male having married to female from Pakistan was not entitled to citizenship of Pakistan.–[Private International law].
1997 CLC 1846 UMAR FAROOQ SHAH v.s SHAGUFTA NASREEN
Succession Act 1925 Ss. 384 & 388—Provisions of Ss.384 & 388, succession Act, 1925 were not in consonance with each other in respect of forum of appeal when succession certificate was granted/not granted by any Court subordinate to District Court–Vesting of powers of District Judge in matter of grant of succession certificate –Provisions of Ss.384 & 388 of the Act compared and explained.
1996 MLD 873 RAZIA KHATOON
Succession Act 1925 —-S.375—Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.), R.400—succession certificate –Non-contentious matter—Formalities—Grant of succession certificate having followed upon consent of all the next of kin and emerging as a non-contentious matter, Nazir of the Court was directed to formalise issuance of same to petitioner in terms exclusively upon execution of a personal bond by petitioner and no sureties as a condition precedent need be insisted upon.
1995 CLC 51 MUHAMMAD HASSAN MUSA vs. MUHAMMAD JAVED MUSA
Succession Act 1925 S. 384—Letter of Administration relating to movable property of deceased—Validity—Appellant and respondents both being heirs of deceased were issued succession certificate s jointly—Letters of Administration were issued to appellants, but were refused to be issued in favour of respondents for the fact that schedule of property was not attached with their application–Letter of Administration issued to respondents subsequently on submission of schedule of property in question, without notice to appellants was valid, in spite of the fact that such notice should have been issued—Issuance of joint letter of , administration to both parties had caused no prejudice to petitioners.
1995 CLC 1553 JAVED SHUJA v.s ANJUMAN (JAMIAT) AHL-E-HADIS MASJID, CHININAWALI ‘
Succession Act 1925 S. 370—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0.1, R.10 & S. 115—Societies Registration Act (VII of 1925), S. 6—Application for grant of succession certificate —Intervenor’s application to be joined as a party in that application was granted by Courts below—Validity—Respondent which. had been impleaded being duly registered body could sue and be sued—Application for grant of succession certificate impleaded public-at-large, including official in possession of funds in question and the person from whom funds were due–Such persons having not been cited as respondents in revision, it had become incompetent in absence of parties—Petitioner having already impleaded public-at-large in his application for grant of succession certificate , therefore any body, who could assist Trial Court in the matter of grant or refusal of succession certificate could come forward even without making application under O.I, R. 10, C.P.C.—Respondents had been correctly impleaded in application for grant of succession certificate —Petitioner was also directed to implead relatives of deceased in his application for grant of succession certificate —Revision against impleading of respondents was dismissed in circumstances.
1993 CLC 1934 ZIAUDDIN AHMAD v.s THE STATE
Court Fees Act 1870 S. 19-I [added by Court Fees (Sindh Amendment) Ordinance (I of 1984)]–Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S), Chap. XXII, Rr. 376 & 378—Payment of court-fees in respect of probates and letters of Administration—Conjoint reading of Rr. 376 & 378, Sindh Chief Court Rules and S. 19-1, Court Fees Act, 1870 indicates that application for grant of Letters of Administration, succession certificate or Probate, must carry with itself deposit of an amount equal to the court-fee that was payable—Deposit of such amount, although has to remain in Court for the purpose of being used for purchase of court-fee for affixation, yet the putting in of such deposit in the Court is mandatory for under subsection (1) of S. 19-1, Court Fees Act, 1870, without a deposit being made, no order, entitling petitioner to Letters of Administration can be passed which makes grant of Letters of Administration contingent upon the deposit of court-fee—Provision of S. 19-1, Court Fees Act, 1870, by imposing a clog on the exercise of jurisdiction
1992 SCMR 2320 GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. KRISHAN KUMAR BANGIA
Succession Act 1925 —-S.373—Indian National applied for and obtained succession certificate from a Pakistani Court in respect of securities left by his deceased father, a non-Muslim Pakistan National—Proclamation was published but none appeared to contest the application of the said person—No impediment existed for heirs of the deceased seeking and obtaining a succession certificate in accordance with prevailing law of Pakistan—Supreme Court, on appeal by the Government of the Province while conceding the locus standi of the Government to file revision in the High Court and also to file the appeal before Supreme Court directed that if and when the person holding the succession certificate or any other such person sought to obtain delivery .of the gold or any other property of the deceased from the Authorities, the said Authority shall inform the Provincial Government and seek prior permission thereof in that behalf and in case, any difficulty arose in this behalf a reference could be made to the Supreme Court for removal thereof.
1992 CLC 2515 HAMIDA BEGUM v.s HUSSAIN AKHTAR
Succession Act 1925 —-S. 370—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XVII, R.3 & S.115–Application for grant of succession certificate —Dismissal of application for want of evidence—Case adjourned thrice for production of applicant’s evidence—Order for adjournment of one of the dates indicated that some of the petitioner’s witnesses were present but it seemed that their evidence was not recorded by Trial Court who did not deem it proper to record evidence in piecemeal—Adjournment orders of Court did not show that case was adjourned at the request of petitioner or her counsel—Provisions of OXVII, R.3, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, were, therefore, not attracted to the case–Valuable rights of parties having been involved in the case, Trial Court should have shown a bit more indulgence to petitioner by granting another adjournment subject to payment of costs so that case in question, could be decided on merit—Closure of petitioner’s evidence was thus, not justified–Courts below had committed an illegality which called for interference by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction—Case was remanded for grant of one last opportunity to petitioner for production of her evidence subject to payment of specified amount as costs.
1992 CLC 2515 HAMIDA BEGUM v.s HUSSAIN AKHTAR
Succession Act 1925 Ss. 384 & 388—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115—Revision before High Court—Competency—Petitioner’s application before Trial Court was not only confined to revocation of succession certificate which had earlier been granted to respondent but was also for issuance of same in her name in place of the one issued in favour of respondent—Trial Court’s impugned order was thus also an order refusing to grant succession certificate to petitioner—Such order was, therefore, appealable under S.384, succession Act, 1925–Revision against order passed by District Judge in appeal was thus competent.
1992 CLC 1202 ZUBAIDA BEGUM v.s MUHAMMAD RAFIQ
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 S.24—Transfer of case—Petitioner wife’s application for grant of succession certificate pending at “S” while other heirs’ application for grant of succession certificate pending at “J”—Wife seeking transfer of other heirs’ application from `J’ to `S’ whereas other heirs resisting such move—Amongst respondents there were as many as five females as compared to petitioner who too was a female—High Court declined to put five ladies of respondents side to inconvenience with a view to accommodate petitioner lady—Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
1991 PLC(CS) 672 (LABOUR-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL- SINDH) WASIM ZOHRA
vs SUPERINTENDENT, TELEGRAPH WORKSHOP, KOTRI
Payment of Wages Act 1936 —-S. 15—Heirship certificate —Mukhtiarkar has no power to issue any heirship certificate which powers are vested in competent Courts under the succession Act.
1991 CLC 288 HAMIDA BEGUM NAZIR BANO
Civil Procedure Code –Order XLI of C.P.C. Appeals from Original Decrees —-O.XLI, R.23—succession Act (XXXIX of 1925), S.370—Status of petitioner as determined in succession certificate —Value of—Petitioner having been granted succession certificate as widow of deceased, same was declared to be of no legal effect by the Court on a suit filed by respondent heirs—Petitioner filed appeal wherein on both parties’ statements case was remanded for decision afresh—Suit was again decreed against petitioner so also appeal—Petitioner’s contention in revision was that at the time of remand of suit, question as regards, status of petitioner stood finally decided, therefore it was not open to Trial Court in post-remand proceedings to have given a finding that she was not a widow of deceased—Perusal of statements, made by parties on basis of which remand order was passed showed that question as to who were heirs of deceased was specifically left open and remanded to Trial Court—Petitioner thus could not contend that her status as heir of deceased was no longer in issue and could not have been decided by Trial Court.
1990 SCMR 881 SANARN JAN KHAN v.s NOOR BEGUM
Succession Act 1925 —S. 370—Grant of succession certificate —Property involved was a joint account of deceased husband and his wife which was to be “payable to either or survivor”—Widow of deceased claimed exclusive right while heirs of deceased wanted to have the account-share in the amounts, and profits etc. in accordance with Islamic Law of inheritance—Civil Court granted succession certificate to appellant to the extent of his assumed Islamic share—Respondents’appeal in High Court succeeded on the ground that the case involved disputed questions of fact and law and it should have been decided as a suit—Parties before Supreme Court agreed, firstly, that the main appeal be decided; and secondly, that appeal should be allowed in accordance with the agreement of parties viz that 1/2 of the total amount should be received by the widow; the other half should be so divided as .1/2 of the remaining amount should be received by the appellant and the other 1/2.i.e.1/4 each should be received by the widow and second respondent—Appeal was allowed in terms of agreement of parties.
1990 CLC 756 USMAN SARWAR vs. : GHULAM FATIMAH
Succession Act 1925 —Ss.370 & 375—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII—Application for succession certificate —Dispute as to relationship of one of widows and sons with deceased and claim of another party for the amount—Procedure to be followed by District Judge while issuing succession certificate —All the applicants legal heirs of the deceased should execute bonds or furnish security to the extent of their respective shares assigned by the District Judge in the amount in question to the effect that in case they were not found entitled or having right in the amount, they shall account for the amount so that it was paid to the person entitled to it—Such surety bonds were to be given to the satisfaction of the District Judge.
1989 CLC 960 RE: MAKTOOB ALI
Succession Act 1925 S.278–Preliminary decree–Application for succession certificate in respect of 3 houses and some immovable property resisted-Respondents produced evidence to prove that deceased had left only one house and no movable property–Preliminary decree passed accordingly.
1989 MLD 4338 SUNTEX INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD
Companies Ordinance 1984 —Ss.290, 291, 76(5) & 152–succession Act (XXXIX of 1925), S.372–succession to deceased Director of Company–All three owners and Directors of company died in accident leaving behind several heirs–Heirs of any one of deceased .I Directors claiming to be his successor, held, would be duty bound to have first obtained succession certificate in respect of share of that deceased Director before they could maintain their petition under Ss.290 & 291 of the Ordinance.
1989 MLD 3555 FARIDA v.s SHAUKAT ALI
Succession Act 1925 —Ss. 372 & 383–succession certificate granted to petitioner and her minor daughter on statement of petitioner that she being widow of deceased alongwith her minor daughter was legal heir of deceased, was challenged by another woman alleging that she was the real wife of deceased and not petitioner and that succession certificate should have been issued to her and her children from deceased-Enough material was available showing that facts were suppressed at time when succession certificate was granted in favour of petitioner; order granting succession certificate to petitioner was revoked leaving parties to pursue remedies available to them according to law.
1989 MLD 3407 MARYAM ABDUL SATTAR MUSA v.s STATE
Succession Act 1925 —Ss.372, 373 & 375–Grant of succession certificate –Demand of security from grantee–Legality–Widow of deceased filing petition for obtaining succession certificate for authorising her to release debts and securities of deceased–Other heirs of deceased who were his major stns and daughters, executed their power of attorney in favour of their mother for grant of that succession certificate –No other person appeared to be entitled to any share in estate of deceased as no one came forward to make any claim in respect of estate of deceased despite petition was duly published and notice of petition was also pasted on Court Notice Board–No circumstances, special or otherwise existed to justify order passed by Court directing petitioner to furnish security–Condition of furnishing such security was set aside and Court was directed to grant succession certificate to petitioner without imposing such condition.
1989 MLD 360 MST. QAMAR SULTANA v.s PUBLIC AT LARGE
Succession Act 1925 —S.372–succession certificate , grant of–Petition for succession certificate by heirs in respect of debts and securities left by deceased–Public notice of petition was duly published in daily newspaper and a copy of notice was also pasted on court notice board–No one had filed objection m response to public notice and all legal heirs of deceased had filed their affidavits alongwith photostat copies of their identity cards recording their no objection–Petition for grant of succession certificate was allowed subject to the Rules.
1989 MLD 34 MST. RAZIA v.s MUHAMMAD SADIQ
Succession Act 1925 —S.383–succession certificate –When a stranger succeeds in obtaining certain amount from estate of a deceased in pursuance of filing proceedings for a succession certificate , Court has power to rectify such a mistake–Appellant sought succession certificate on basis of alleged gifts which were not established through competent proceedings before a competent Court of law–Trial Judge concluded that although there were two orders for payment of certain amount from amounts realised by Nazir of Court from estate of deceased but there was no order (or grant of succession certificate –Trial Judge directed appellant to redeposit amount received by her in pursuance of an order passed by Trial Judge in succession application–Order of Trial Judge, held, was in consonance with law.
1988 CLC 1467 SADRUDDIN: IN RE
Succession Act 1925 —Ss.370 & 372–succession certificate , grant of–succession certificate was granted to petitioner as no objection thereto, had been filed by next of kins of deceased–Such certificate , however, was granted in respect of account of deceased but was refused in respect of jewellery which did not fall within ambit of security as defined in S.370(2) of succession Act
1988 CLC 1467 SADRUDDIN:
Succession Act 1925 Ss. 212, 213, 370 & 372–succession certificate , grant of-Essentials–Such certificate could not be granted in respect of jewellery.
1988 MLD 1270 SA. MASUD AHMAD v.s KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Succession Act 1925 —–Ss.372 & 384–succession certificate –succession certificate to receive group insurance amount refused to appellant by District Judge on ground that appellant had failed to establish his entitlement–No denial coming from respondent or anybody else as to relationship between appellant and deceased as averred in application–Nobody had come forward in response to public notice–Question whether application of appellant for issue of succession certificate could have been denied in absence of finding that there was some other relation of deceased, had not been looked into by District Judge–Case remanded to District Judge with direction to dispose of application for issuance of succession certificate afresh after hearing parties on the above aspect after giving opportunity to produce further evidence, if any.
1987 CLC 2536 AHMAD-UL-HAQ SIDDIQUI v.s BASHIR AHMED
Succession Act 1925 S.214–civii Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 146 & O-XXI, R.16-Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12–ScQpe and application of S.214, succession Act, 1925–Words, “debt”, “judgment debt” and “judgment-debtor” in S.214, succession Act, 1925– Meanings– Specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property- -Execution proceedings commenced by deceased decree-holder–Substitution of legal representatives of deceased decree– holder- -Production of “succession certificate ” “probate or letter of administration”—
1987 CLC 1808 MST. KHAIRUNNISSA vs : KAZI MUHAMMAD LATIF
Succession Act 1925 —S.5–succession certificate –Court, after grant of succession certificate , held, did not possess any power to pass order for allowing maintenance allowance to minors.
1987 CLC 262 MUHAMMAD JAVED AKHTAR v.s PUBLIC-IN-LARGE
Succession Act 1925 S. 373(3) & (4)–Letter of Administration and succession certificate issuance of–When surety, a condition precedent–Where Court grants Letter of Administration it has no power to dispense with surety, which is a condition precedent for issuance thereof–Where case in respect of succession certificate , does not fall under S. 373(3) or (4), Court, held, would have discretion in dispensing with security while granting such certificate –Where cases for grant of succession certificate fall under S. 373(3) & (4), Court could not grant certificate of succession without first obtaining security fr6m petitioner–Letters of Administration or certificate of succession could not be issued in favour of Nazir of Court.
1986 MLD 897 SALEEM LODHIA
Succession Act 1925 –S.5–succession certificate , issue of–Correct criterion for issuance Of succession certificate , held, was domicile of deceased at time of death.
1986 MLD 76 AFZAL KHAN v.s UNITED BANK LTD.
Succession Act 1925 —S. 214–Administrator-General’s Act (III of 1913), S.2(5)–Suit for accounts– Maintainability–Legal representatives of deceased accountholder being dissatisfied with statement of account pertaining to account of deceased, filed suit demanding production of withdrawal slips, cheques and vouchers for inspection–Suit being for accounts only, legal representatives of deceased account-holder, held, were not debarred from filing such suit without obtaining letters of administration or succession certificate .
1986 CLC 250 LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION S. ZIAUDDIN AHMAD
Court Fees Act 1870 S.19(1) [as amended by Court Fees (Sind Amendment) Ordinance (I of 1984) ]–Sind Chief Court Rules (O . S.) , rr, 376 & 378–Letters of Administration, grant of–Application for grant of Letters of Administration, succession certificate , or probate, held, must carry with itself deposit of amount equal to court-fee payable on such amount–Grant of Letters of Administration was contingent upon deposit of court-fee which must precede such grant.
1985 CLC 2211 MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs. FAKHARI PASHA
- 373–Object of succession certificate — Object was to facilitate collection of debts by person who had prima facie clear title to succession and had beneficial interest in debts–Right to succession certificate is to be decided in summary manner.
1985 CLC 2680 AAMER SAEED v.s. DISTRICT JUDGE
Succession Act 1925 —Ss. 372, 373 & 383,–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 115 & 151–succession certificate , issued by civil Court–Objector filed petition under S. 383, succession Act in revocation of certificate and praying under 5.151, C.P.C. for suspension of certificate –Trial Court dismissed stay application–Revision against order of trial Court, filed by objector–District Judge sitting in revision, summoning Manager of Bank and after recording his statement without oath and acting upon same accepting revision petition granted temporary injunction in favour of objector–District Judge, held, could not record statement of Manager without oath–Parties not giver opportunity to cross-examine Manager statement tit circumstances could not be taken into consideration–Order accepting revision declared to be passed without lawful authority in circumstances–Constitutional petition accepted.
1985 CLC 1966 SHAMIM AKHLAQ v.s WALAYAT KHAN
Succession Act 1925 —S. 371–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.23-24–succession certificate –Jurisdiction of Court–Question of jurisdiction is essentially linked up with residence of deceased–Question could not be decided without recording evidence–Such an exercise, held, beyond scope of proceedings under sections 23 & 24 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.-[Jurisdiction].
1985 MLD 199 WALAYAT KHAN v.s GHULAM SAKINA
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 —S. 24–Transfer of suit–Objection to jurisdiction of Court at having been taken in written statement–Such objection, held, should be put into preliminary issue and disposed of expeditiously by specified date-Petition for grant of succession certificate being already pending in another Court–Present case transferred to that Court in order to avoid inconvenience to parties
1985 MLD 1559 SALEEM SON OF THE DECEASED
Succession Act 1925 —S. 372–Grant of more than ore succession certificate s–More than one succession certificate , held, could be granted.
1985 CLC 460 MUHAMMAD BASHIR v.s M. A. FOOTWEAR
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 S.146 and O.XXI, r.16–succession Act (XXXIX of 1925), S.214 (i)(b)–Application for restoration of execution petitions which was filed by deceased decree-holder–Such applications instituted by legal representative of deceased decree-holder without obtaining succession certificate in accordance with law–Application for restoration not competent without production of certificate of succession –Provisions contained in 5.146 and O.XX1, r.16, C P.C, held, procedural in nature–Such provisions are subject to other provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 or any other law–succession Act, 1925 is a special law dealing with intestate and testamentary succession –Party, held, could move for execution subject to limitation placed by 5.214, succession Act, 1925–Section 214 (i)(b), succession Act, 1925 imposes restriction on power of Court to proceed upon an application of a person claiming on succession unless such person produced a certificate of succession specifying debt thereon.
1985 CLC 460 MUHAMMAD BASHIR v.s M. A. FOOTWEAR
Succession Act 1925 —S.214(i)(b)–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S.146 and O.XXI, r.16–Execution proceedings commenced by deceased decree-holder-Right of legal representatives to continue proceedings without obtaining certificate of succession in pending execution application–Language employed in S.214(i)(b), succession Act, 1925 did neither contemplate any distinction between fresh execution application and pending execution application nor excluded pending application from its purview–When legal representatives of deceased decree-holder are substituted on record in a pending execution case, proceedings from that stage onward are to be considered at instance of such substituted party and provisions of S.214, succession Act, 1925 are immediately attracted and .Court could not pass any order in case without production of succession certificate .
1983 CLC 266 NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN v.s ASHRAF JEHAN BEGUM
- 5-Application of provision-Deceased, having died in India, leaving amount in his current account of bank in Pakistan-Daughter of deceased resident in Pakistan obtaining succession certificate s and demanding payment of amount from Bank-Held, section 5 was not attracted to such case.
1972 PLD 177 IN RE : MST. ZEB HAMIM KHAN
Carriage by Air (International Convention) Act 1966 —- Second Sched., r. 6–succession certificate granted under r. 6 Court-fee, under Art. 12, First Sched., Court Fees Act, 1870, cannot be charged-certificate granted under Act IX of 1966 not same as provided by succession certificate Act, 1889-Court Feet Act (VII of 1870), First Sched, Art. 12.
1969 PLD 141 MST. KHATIJA BEGUM AND OTHERS v.s HAJI GULZAR AHMAD
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 S. 47 read with succession Act (XXXIX of 1925), S. 214 (1)-Execution of decree-Judgment debtor dying after obtaining decree-Legal representatives should obtain succession certificate as envisaged on S. 214(1), succession Act, before proceeding with execution – Outright dismissal of execution application, made by legal representative, for want of succession certificate , neither desirable nor necessary-Execution Courts should give time to legal representatives of deceased decree holder to obtain succession certificate .
1958 PLD 82 UMER HAYAT v.s MST. HAYAT BIBI AND OTHERS
General Clauses Act 1897 S. 24-Notification issued under repealed Act is to be regarded valid under new Act-succession Act (XXXIX of 1925), S. 371. Whenever an Act is repealed and re-enacted a notification under the repealed Act is regarded as a notification under the Act in which the provisions of the repealed Act are re-enacted. The notification of the Provincial Government is to be regarded as one under the provisions of the succession Act which re-enacts what was contained in the succession certificate s Act.
1957 PLD 179 (PRIVY-COUNCIL) SOMERVELL OF HARROW AND MR. L. M. D. DE SILVA A. G. PATIKI & CO.v.s DEMETRA GEORGHIOU PATIKI
Succession certificate —–Heir entitled to sue for share of deceased in partnership property without certificate unless prevented by rule of law or procedure-(Cyprus case).
1950 PLD 167 NIHALMAL HARYAL MAL v.s LACHMIBAI
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)—-S. 47-Execution-Ques”ions relating to legal representatives of Party-Should be decided under S. 47-succession certificate not required. The Civil Procedure Code does not require that the legal representatives must obtain a succession certificate or probate before taking out execution. But the Code makes provision for legal representative to be brought on record and under section 47, Civil Procedure Code, where question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such questions are to be determined by tile Court.
1950 PLD 253 MALIK FATEH MUHAMMAD v.s MALKANI BRAG BHARI
Succession Act 1925 Ss. 372 (3) and 373 (4)-Whether more than one succession certificate can be granted by Court, in respect of portions of the sane debt.