Succession Citations

ENTITLEMENT OF PENSION

2019 PLC Note 13 Page 14

2019 MLD 112

If father dies then only mother is entitled for pension and if

9: اگر باپ فوت ہوجاے توپینشن کا حق بیوہ کا ہوتا ہے مگر اگرماں بھی فوت ہوجاے تو پینشن نابالغان کے درمیان برارب تقسیم ہوگی بیٹا صرف جب تک نابالغ ہوتا ہے تب تک پینشن کا حقدار ہوتا ہے

بیٹی کی جب تک شادی نہیں ہوتی تب تک باپ کی پینشن کی حقدار ہوتی ہے جبکہ طلاق یافتہ یا بیوہ بیٹی بھی پینش کی حقدار ہوتی ہے

Pension would be distributed equally amongst surviving unmarried daughters /widow daughters / divorced daughters till marriage /remarriage.

▪2015 PLC (CS) 1255 Peshawar High Court

☆ Judgment apply on Khalida bibi case

Term Gratuity Define

Shahda package define

Word family define

Widow entitled for all benefits

▪ 2013 CLC 370 Karachi High Court

One widow withdrawal amount which after that divided among legal heirs.

▪2012 PLC 419

Only widow is entitled for pension.

▪2007 PLD 35 Supreme Court

Immediate action against department,

Pension should be divided as early as possible.

▪ 2006 PLC (CS) 631

Punjab Civil Servants Rule 1963

Widow is entitled for pension and other dues towards department.

▪2005 PLC (CS) 399 Lahore High Court Lahore

Rule 4.10

Two widows entitled for pension

In case of death of one the other one get whole pension.

▪ 2002 PLC (CS) 634 Lahore High Court Lahore

Widow and other family entitled for pension.. family define in this judgement.

Also entitled for gratuity

▪ 1999 MLD 703

Benevolent Fund, Group Insurance and Pension are not heritable.

▪1996 Pcrlj 1127 Karachi High Court

Widow and family is entitled for pension.

▪1994 PLC (CS) 176

Pension-cum- Gratuity Scheme 1954

Widow is entitled for pension, gratuity and group insurance and other benefits divide into legal heirs in case of issueless widow.

▪ 1993 MLD 2171

G.P Fund heritable

Benevolent Fund, Group Insurance and Pension are not heritable.

________________________________

2018 CLC 639 Karachi High court

S.278. Letter of Administrator , issuance of pre-condition for fixing a succession miscellaneous application SMA for hearing before HC , (FRC) issued by NADRA officer raised objection that before registering the SMA the petitioner should produce a family registration certificate issued by nadra , Held that while FRC was neither exclusive not conclusive evidence of next-of-kin , it nonetheless facilitated the court in dealing with succession matter . High Court directed that while the office may register the SMA for its further processing, it should not be fixed for hearing until the petitioner either filed a FRC or in the very least demonstrated that he had applied for one but was declined by NADRA , petition was dismissed.

______________________________________________________________________

2018 SCMR 762 Supreme court

S.372 Inheritance Succession Certificate issuance of . Scope Not necessary for each and every legal heir to be property represented and appear before the court to get a succession certificate. Court on receiving such application had to issue /grant succession certificate in favour of all the legal heir by considering and determing their respective share by complying with the procedural requirements of law in such regard.

______________________________________________________________________

Citation Name  : 2018  SCMR  762        SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : ZOHRA BIBI
Side Opponent : Haji SULTAN MAHMOOD
	S. 372---Inheritance---succession certificate, issuance of---Scope---Not necessary for each and every legal heir to be properly represented and appear before the Court to get a succession certificate---Court on receiving such application had to issue/grant succession certificate in favour of all the legal heirs by considering and determining their respective shares by complying with the procedural requirements of law in such regard

Citation Name  : 2018  SCMR  762        SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : ZOHRA BIBI
Side Opponent : Haji SULTAN MAHMOOD
	S. 372---succession certificate---Scope---Inheritance of a person opened the moment he died and all the legal heirs became owners to the extent of their respective shares there and then---Sanction of inheritance mutation, issuance of succession certificate etc. were procedural matters regulated by the procedural laws just to make the records in order and also for fiscal purposes

Citation Name  : 2018  SCMR  762        SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : ZOHRA BIBI
Side Opponent : Haji SULTAN MAHMOOD
	S. 383---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 198---succession certificate, revocation of---succession certificate obtained fraudulently---After the demise of propositus of the parties, his son, respondent was successful in getting a succession certificate in his name by claiming himself to be the sole legal heir of the deceased propositus---Subsequently after culmination of the proceedings in his favour, respondent also submitted an undertaking in the court for submission of details of accounts and also held himself liable/responsible to satisfy the claim of any other legal heir of the deceased if any, in case someone came forward---On getting knowledge of the said fraudulent act of respondent 'propositus' daughters/appellants moved an application under S. 383 of the succession Act, 1925 for revocation of succession certificate, which was allowed by the Trial Court---High Court set aside the order of revocation of succession certificate; held, that when status and relationship of the parties with the propositus was not denied then every legal heir was entitled to get/receive his/her Shari share to the extent of his/her entitlement in the property moveable/ immovable left by the propositus---Respondent alleged that every legal heir was paid his/her due share, thus, it was for the respondent to have proved his stance of payment of respective shares to all the legal heirs but he had miserably failed to do so---Record established that the original succession certificate was obtained by respondent by practicing fraud with the Court and the appellants---Appellants being poor illiterate ladies had no knowledge of the original successioncertificate and after getting knowledge of the same filed application for revocation of the same---Trial Court had rightly revoked the succession certificate issued in favour of the respondent---Respondent had verified a false statement, rather concealed the true facts before the Court regarding actual legal heirs of the deceased propositus and thus apparently had committed fraud with the Court and the parties, therefore, Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to proceed against the respondent under S. 198, P.P.C. as required by S. 372(2) of the succession Act, 1925---Appeal was allowed accordingly with costs to be borne by the respondent for the entire litigation

Citation Name  : 2018  SCMR  762         SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : ZOHRA BIBI
Side Opponent : Haji SULTAN MAHMOOD
	Ss. 372 & 383---succession certificate, grant/revocation of---Limitation period---No statutory period of limitation was provided for grant of any succession certificate under S. 372 or its revocation under S. 383 of the succession Act, 1925, but even then it had to be availed within a reasonable time

Citation Name  : 2018  PLD  38             PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : Mst. ASMAT BEGUM
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD YOUSAF
	Ss. 37, 337 & 383---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.195(1)(b)---succession certificate---Concealing of facts---Initiation of criminal proceedings---Petitioners and respondents were legal heirs of deceased---Respondents excluded petitioners from the list of legal heirs while seeking succession certificate from the court---Petitioners filed application before Trial Court to withdraw succession certificate as well as initiating criminal proceedings against respondents---Trial Court withdrew succession certificate but declined to initiate criminal proceedings---Validity---Procedure laid down under S.373 of succession Act, 1925 was a summary procedure wherein evidence like a civil suit was not recorded---Court in case of grant of succession certificate, did not determine rights of parties---If any person wanted determination of rights then remedy lay for him in shape of suit under S.37 of succession Act, 1925---If a person was aggrieved and dissatisfied by issuance of successioncertificate he could prefer an appeal under S.383 of succession Act, 1925---Trial Court only had the prerogative to lodge complaint against respondents in terms of provisions of S.195(1)(b), Cr.P.C. and same could not be pre-empted by anyone---Trial Court in view of summary proceedings which culminated into a succession certificate in favour of respondents had rightly declined to lodge a complaint against them in terms of provision of S.195(1)(b), Cr.P.C.---Lower Appellate Court rightly did not interfere in the complaint of petitioners---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances

Citation Name  : 2018  PLD  30 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : INAM SHAH
Side Opponent : PUBLIC-AT-LARGE
	Ss. 372 & 383---succession certificate---Disputed items, status of---Determination---Scope---Appellant filed application for seeking succession certificate with regard to Bank account and valuable items lying in locker of the deceased---Trial Court issued certificate to the extent of Bank account only---Validity---Status of disputed items could not be determined by Trial Court exercising jurisdiction under succession Act, 1925---Appropriate remedy for parties was to approach Civil Court under its plenary jurisdiction to first determine status of disputed items being legacy of deceased or otherwise; after determination by Civil Court that disputed items constituted legacy of deceased, parties could resort to mechanism under succession Act, 1925, for obtaining successioncertificate in respect of disputed items or extension of existing succession certificate to the disputed items---Order accordingly.

Citation Name  : 2018  PLD  129            KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : Khawaja RASHIDULLAH
Side Opponent : Khawaja FARIDULLAH
	S. 278---Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VII of 1961), S.4---succession Certificate---Children of pre-deceased brother and sister---Office sought approval of High Court to distribute shares among legal heirs excluding three applicants who were children of pre-deceased brother and sister of deceased---Validity---Provision of S.4 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, was specific to predeceased sons and daughters of a deceased and could not be stretched in any manner---Matter was to be strictly governed by law as it was a matter of inheritance amongst Muslims---Provisions were well defined and no ambiguity was left so as to adopt any analogy---Children of predeceased brother and sister fell under the category of distant kindred, who could only inherit a share when there were no sharers and residuaries---In the present case, there were brothers and sisters who survived the deceased as sharers and residuaries and therefore, there could not be any share of distant kindred---Legal heirs of predeceased brother and sister of deceased listed as applicants were not entitled for any share as inheritance---High Court directed to distribute shares amongst remaining legal heirs and approved the report of office---Application was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name  : 2018  PLD  126            KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : Mrs. NAJMA SULTAN
Side Opponent : BANK ISLAMIC
	Ss. 278 & 372---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---succession certificate---Interim injunction, grant of---Bank account not belonging to deceased---Legal heirs of deceased filed application to restrain account holder from the operation of Bank account in question which was neither in the name of deceased nor the account holders were amongst legal heirs of the deceased---Validity---Inclusion of names of holders of account in succession petition was against the mandate of S. 372(1) of succession Act, 1925---Bank account which was not operated by deceased could not be part of debts and securities of deceased---Court, in succession matters, was not supposed to declare that Bank account of a third party was an account of deceased without recording of evidence---Only the legal heirs of deceased could be made party in succession matters and that too if they had no dispute even inter se---Interim injunction was refused in circumstance

Citation Name  : 2018  CLC  1320         KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : Syed MAQBOOL HUSSAIN SHAH
Side Opponent : Sayeda FIRDOUS AZARA BUKHARI
	S. 263--- Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5---Letter of administration---Application for revocation---Delay in filing application for revocation--- Effect--- Condonation of delay--- Letters of administration were issued in year 2002 in favour of petitioner with regard to property in question---Objector assailed letters of administration in year 2015 in respect of property in question on grounds that property did not belong to deceased predecessor-in- interest---Validity---Matter fell under Explanations (a), (b) and (c) of S. 263 of succession Act, 1925 as subject property was not available as estate of deceased for distribution amongst his legal heirs---Petitioner had no locus standi to seek letters of administration in respect of property in question and proceedings were defective in substance from its very inception---Entire claim of petitioner was based on misrepresentation of facts and she deliberately committed fraud upon High Court by pleading such facts which were not correct even to her own knowledge and also by concealing such facts which were true but same were not disclosed by her before High Court---Delay per se in applying for revocation of grant of letters of administration was no bar to revocation in absence of any finding of acquiescence and waiver in such regard---High Court condoned delay in filing application seeking revocation of letters of administration which was recalled and revoked/annulled--- Application was allowed in circumstances.

Citation Name  : 2018  CLC  639            KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : PETITION FOR GRANT OF LETTER OF ADMINISTRATION TO DR. MOHAMMAD SHARIF
Side Opponent :
	S. 278---Letter of administration, issuance of---Pre-conditions for fixing a succession Miscellaneous Application ("SMA") for hearing before the High Court---Family Registration Certificate ("FRC") issued by NADRA---Office raised objection that before registering the "SMA", the petitioner should produce a Family Registration Certificate ("FRC") issued by NADRA; held, that while 'FRC' was neither exclusive nor conclusive evidence of next-of-kin, it nonetheless facilitated the court in dealing with succession matters---High Court directed that while the office may register the 'SMA' for its further processing, it should not be fixed for hearing until the petitioner either filed a FRC or in the very least demonstrated that he had applied for one but was declined by NADRA---Petition was disposed of accordingly

Citation Name  : 2018  CLC  390            KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : ANEES VAYYANI
Side Opponent : Mst. ZARINA VAYANI
	Ss. 295 & 278---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XX, R.13 & S.114---succession ---Procedure in contentious cases---Decree in administration suit---Nature of order under S.295, succession Act, 1925---Conversion of proceedings under succession Act, 1925 to a suit of administration under O.XX, R.13, C.P.C.---Preliminary decree---Scope---Orders passed in absence of legal heirs could not be treated as orders passed on "objections" in order to treat an application for letter for administration as contentious, which could only be converted into a suit if the objections filed were prima facie tenable and objectors were to be treated as defendants in terms of S.295, succession Act, 1925---When there was neither "objections" nor "objectors" on record, order under O.XX, R.13, C.P.C. could not be passed

Citation Name  : 2018  PLD  325           KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : Mst. AMINA KHATOON
Side Opponent : Mst. NIGHAT JABEEN
	Ss. 370, 372 & 384---Stepbrother of deceased, entitlement of---Appellant sought succession certificate for assets left by her deceased husband---Grievance of appellant was that stepbrother of her deceased husband could not be arrayed in list of legal heirs under Hanafi law of inheritance---Validity---According to Hanafi law, in the first instance, property of deceased was to go to sharers and if estate was not exhausted by sharers, it was to go to residuaries and if there was no sharer and/or residuary, property was to be distributed among distant kindred---Heirs nearer in degree excluded more remote---Stepbrother of deceased was neither a sharer nor a residuary and he had no right to inherit from estate of deceased---High Court set aside order passed by Trial Court to the extent of inclusion of name of stepbrother of deceased in list of legal heirs---Appeal was allowed accordingl

Citation Name  : 2018  PLD  251          KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : LIAQUAT ALI
Side Opponent : Mst. HUMA FAIZ
	Ss. 283, 284, 299 & 372---succession certificate---Provident fund, gratuity, group insurance, salary dues, leave encashment, benevolent fund and welfare grant--- Deceased was issueless and survived by his widow, two sisters and two brothers--- Appellant was one of the brothers of deceased who sought succession certificate---Trial Court issued succession certificate in favour of widow and excluded the appellant---Validity---Trial Court had rightly concluded that appellant was not entitled for succession certificate---Widow of deceased was also not entitled for grant of succession certificate in her favour on grounds that funds in question were never considered as assets of deceased for which succession certificate could be granted---Grant of successioncertificate in favour of widow would mean that assets were liable to be distributed among all legal heirs, which was incorrect---Widow was nominee and entitled for such funds, i.e., provident fund, gratuity, group insurance, welfare funds and benevolent fund without having any recourse of obtaining a succession certificate---succession certificate was granted for its distribution to legal heirs for salary dues and leave encashment---High Court directed authorities to deposit amounts of salary and leave encashment with court officials who would distribute same amount among legal heirs as per their entitlement--- Amount of concerned provident fund, gratuity, group insurance, welfare funds and benevolent fund would be released by authorities to widow of deceased as required under law after due verification and satisfaction as succession certificate for release of such amount was not required---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Citation Name  : 2018  PLD  249           KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : LETTER OF ADMINISTRATION AND SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF MOVEABLE AND IMMOVEABLE PROPERTIES OF DECEASED JASIM RASOOL
Side Opponent :
	Ss. 278 & 372---Letter of Administration and succession certificate, issuance of---Minor legal heir---Bank account---Share of minor retained by Nazir of the Court---Petitioner (widow of the deceased) had applied for grant of Letter of Administration and succession Certificate in respect of moveable and immoveable properties left by her deceased-husband---High Court directed that Letter of Administration should be issued to the petitioner as per the relevant rules for effecting mutation of the immovable properties of the deceased; that as regards the prayer for a succession Certificate for the Bank accounts, one of the legal heirs was a minor, therefore, the Nazir of the High Court should administer the Bank accounts of the deceased by calling for / collecting the relevant Bank balances by distributing the share therein of the adult legal heirs directly to them, and by retaining the share of the minor legal heir until further orders; that for such assignment, the fee of the Nazir (fixed at Rs.15,000) should be deducted from the Bank balances before distribution---Application was granted accordingly

Citation Name  : 2017  PLD  22 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Side Appellant : BIBI HUMERA
Side Opponent : GHULAM DASTAGIR
	S. 375---succession certificate---Surety bond---Petitioner was widow of government official who lost his life while he was on duty---Award, pay and allowances given by government on the death of petitioner's husband were distributed among legal heirs in view of succession certificate issued by Court---Respondent was brother of deceased husband of petitioner and succession certificate was issued in his favour who submitted surety bond before the Court---Grievance of petitioner was that her brother in law had kept minor children with him and had also not distributed shares of petitioner and her minor children---Validity---Respondent was granted succession certificate being attorney of petitioner and other legal heirs and he was required to be dealt with under S.375 of succession Act, 1925---High Court directed the Court which issued succession certificate to proceed with the matter and to get the amount of shares of minors recovered from respondent and the matter was remanded for the purpose---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Citation Name  : 2017  YLR  150             PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : LIAQAT ZAMAN KHAN
Side Opponent : Mst. TAZEEM AKHTAR
	Ss. 373(3), 384, 387 & 388--- Application for succession certificate---Procedure--- Issuance of successioncertificate during pendency of declaratory suit--- Validity--- Holder of succession certificate--- Liability towards rightful claimant--- succession certificate---Revocability---Proof of divorce of wife of deceased---Requirement---Status of widow--- Determination--- Presumption---Application for issuance of succession certificate by widow of deceased---Respondents took plea that the deceased had divorced the applicant during his lifetime, and only they being brothers and sisters were entitled to his legacy---Respondents (brothers and sisters) also filed a suit for declaration claiming themselves as sole legal heirs of the deceased and applicant as his divorcee having no right in legacy---Trial Court issued succession certificate in favour of applicant (widow) and respondents on the ground that court, under S. 373(3) of succession Act, 1925, could proceed with succession application even while leaving aside issues relating to intricate questions of fact and law to be resolved by competent court and taking into account the obvious factual position---Contention raised by respondents was that successioncertificate could not be issued during pendency of civil suit and without resolution of question as to divorce of applicant---Validity---Safeguard was provided to rightful claimant and liability of holder of succession certificate to rightful claimant under S. 387 of succession Act, 1925---Trial Court clearly found that applicant would be considered as widow of deceased unless and until her alleged divorce was established by decree of civil court and that in case in the suit the applicant was declared as divorcee of the deceased, she would be bound to return share she would collect from the legacy---Law allowed Court to grant certificate to applicant who appeared to be a person having prima facie the best title thereto, notwithstanding a rival claim appearing intricate and difficult to determine in summary proceedings---Nothing was wrong with impugned order of Trial Court after Nikkah was proved and the divorce could not be proved from record by respondents in summary proceedings for issuance of succession certificate---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. (b) succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)----

Citation Name  : 2017  PLD  563          KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : Sheikh HAROON BUKSH
Side Opponent : Shaikh TAHIR BUKSH
	Ss. 295 & 278---Chief Court (Sindh) Rules (OS), Chap. XXII, R.413---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XX, R.13 & S.114---succession ---Procedure in contentious cases---Decree in administration suit---Nature of order under S.295 of the succession Act, 1925---Conversion of proceedings under succession Act, 1925 to a suit of administration under O. XX, R.13, C.P.C.---Petitioner sought review of order passed by High Court under S.295 of the succession Act, 1925, whereby in view of contentious nature of succession proceedings, application seeking issuance of letters of administration were converted into a civil suit--- Contention of applicant inter alia was that impugned order, which converted proceedings into suit for administration and stated that the preliminary decree be passed was contrary to law; and the suit should be regular suit and not a suit for administration---Validity---Impugned order identified the parties and identified as to who should be the plaintiff and defendant and mentioned that the suit would be in the form of a suit for administration of the properties of the deceased and therefore all ingredients of S.295 of the succession Act, 1925 and O.XX, C.P.C. were fully adhered to---When parties were legal heirs of the deceased and were contesting with regard to share in property left by the deceased, in such situation any one of the legal heirs could file a suit for administration of properties or file an application under S.278 of the succession Act, 1925 for grant of "letter of administration" and in terms of S.295 of the succession Act, 1925 in the case where there was contention, then proceedings were supposed to be converted as nearly as they could be, into a "regular suit" according to provisions of the C.P.C.---Court in the impugned order exercised powers of a court of original civil jurisdiction and once an order was passed, the court also had power to take further steps to minimize delay in disposal of dispute and the court was under a statutory obligation to pass an order for preliminary decree---Use of the word "shall" in O.XX, R.13, C.P.C. was of mandatory nature, and the C.P.C. did not envisage any other form a suit except for a suit for administration of properties under O.XX, C.P.C.---No error on the face of record was found in the impugned order---Review application was rejected, in circumstance

Citation Name  : 2017  PLD  555          KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : ZAHID YOUNUS
Side Opponent :
	Ss. 291, 299 & 373---Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.), R.400---succession certificate and Letters of Administration---Surety bond---Powers of Court---Appellant filed application for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of immovable properties which belonged to his deceased mother---Single Judge of High Court granted Letter of Administration in the name of appellant, subject to his furnishing surety/security bond---Validity---Where Court granted Letters of Administration to petitioner on his application, the Court had no power to dispense with the surety, which was a condition precedent for issuance of Letters of Administration---Under S.281(2)(b) of succession Act, 1925, there was no discretion with Court to demand a bond from a person to whom a probate was granted in as much as the word 'may' had been used therefore, it was discretionary---Where the case before Court did not fall under S.373(3) or (4) of succession Act, 1925, the Court had discretion to dispense with the security while granting succession Certificate but in respect of cases falling under S.373(3) or (4) of succession Act, 1925, the Court could not grant succession Certificate without first obtaining security from petitioner---Provision of R.400 of Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.) was in the nature of subordinate legislation and it could not over-ride the effect of S.291 of succession Act, 1925, as the same was a substantive provision of law---To the extent of inconsistency between the two, the substantive provisions of S.291 of succession Act, 1925, would prevail over R.400 of Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.)---Where a particular procedure was prescribed for doing something that thing must be done according to that procedure otherwise the entire proceedings would be illegal or irregular---Single Judge of High Court had rightly decided application in accordance with law and the order did not require any interference in intra-court appeal---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name  : 2017  PLD  486            KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : Mst. QAISRA BANO
Side Opponent : Shaikh SHAHID ABBAS
	S. 372---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 114 & 151---Administrative suit---Review of order-Inherent powers of High Court---Act of Court---High Court directed to convert succession Miscellaneous Application (SMA) into administrative suit but later on said application was dismissed for not impleading proper legal heirs---Validity---Once the Court competently ordered conversion of proceedings from SMA to administrative suit, then direction in former proceedings would lose its value and weight and things were to proceed as per procedure, provided for later (converted) proceedings---Suit for administration could not be dismissed simply for the reason that there could also be some other legal heirs, not made party in suit---Inquiry in such regard could competently be done within the scope of administrative suit---Such was an inadvertent mistake of Court which should not result in prejudicing anybody---Order converting SMA into administrative suit held the field and at the time of subsequent order i.e. dismissal of SMA if it would have been pointed out so that such subsequent order could not have passed---Bona fide inadvertent mistake even of Court could always be corrected/ratified by exercising powers provided by S.114, C.P.C. coupled with inherent jurisdiction within the meaning of S.151, C.P.C., which was meant for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court---Administrative suit was restored in circumstances

Citation Name  : 2017  MLD  460            KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant :
Side Opponent :
	Ss. 273 & 372---Chief Court Rules (O.S.), Rr. 340, 376, 377 & 399---Letters of Administration and successioncertificate---Amended petition---Seeking of surety---Object---Necessary ingredients---Widow of deceased owner of property in question died during pendency of petition and applicant did not file proper amended petition---Validity---On the death of widow of deceased owner, in amended petition for the share inherited by her, amended petition must disclose her legal heirs---Once all codel formalities were honestly completed and petition of letter of administration was granted, it would be duty of petitioner to administer properties of both deceased parents as per law which could include first mutation in the name of respective legal heirs and then it would be the choice of new owners by way of inheritance to deal with their respective individual shares in joint properties the way they could wish to, but in accordance with law---Grant of letter of Administration was always subject to the Rules---Purpose of obtaining sureties by Court in terms of Rr. 399 & 340 of Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.) was to ensure that petitioner would administer properties of deceased in accordance with law and honestly.

Citation Name  : 2017  PLD  309           KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MRS. FATIMA MANSURI WIDOW OF GHULAM NABI MANSURI, MUSLIM, ADULT
Side Opponent :
	Ss. 281, 278 & 372---succession ---Grant of Letter of Administration---Bequest by Will---Verification of petition for probate by one witness to Will---Non-contentious matter---Consent of all legal heirs of deceased to the Will of the deceased---Applicability of S.281 of the succession Act, 1925 in a non-contentious matter---Scope---Section 281 of the succession Act, 1925, which was a rule of procedure, was not of any particular importance in a non-contentious case, when the existence and content of a Will was uncontested and the entire matter was being proceeded consensually, with the concurrence of the executors and legatees/heirs.

Citation Name  : 2016  PLD  47             KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : Mrs. AMINA JAFFER
Side Opponent :
	S. 372---succession certificate, grant of---Furnishing of security---Object---Discretion, exercise of---Scope---Plea of petitioner was that there was no objection with regard to issuance of succession certificate and she should be exempted from furnishing surety---Validity---Object of requiring surety was to secure the interest of any such person who might have a share, claim or interest in the assets left by the deceased whose name had not been disclosed to the court or who was not before the court, or a creditor of the deceased, a minor legal heir or a legal heir of unsound mind whose share was retained by the court or a legal heir whose share was not distributed to him in accordance with law after the grant of succession certificate or letters of administration---If court was satisfied that such situation did not exist then it might dispense with the furnishing of surety while granting letters of administration or succession certificate---Such power of court was discretionary and person applying for letters of administration or succession certificate could not seek such discretion as a matter of right---Exercise of discretion would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case---Such discretion should be exercised liberally keeping in view the hardship that might be faced by the legal heirs of the deceased in furnishing surety who might not have any other or additional property of their own to offer as surety---Other legal heirs had no objection in granting of succession certificate in favour of petitioner---Discretion of dispensing with the requirement of furnishing surety could be exercised in favour of petitioner---No impediment existed in the grant of succession certificate in the name of petitioner---succession certificate was issued in the name of petitioner subject to her executing personal bond equivalent to her share of the total assets left by the deceased and furnishing surety to the satisfaction of Nazir equivalent to the shares of other legal heirs---Petition for grant of succession certificate was allowed in circumstances.

Citation Name  : 2016  PLD  197           KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant :
Side Opponent :
	S. 372---succession certificate grant of---Hindu Law---succession -Scope---Deceased was last full owner of all the property left by him---Said properties should devolve upon his legal heirs according to the rules of succession ---Daughters during life time of their mother under Hindu law of succession were not entitled to inherit from the estate of their father---Such right of daughters would accrue only after the death of their mother---Daughters would succeed if their mother died daring the lifetime of their father---Heritable right would accrue to the daughters not on the death of their father but after the death of their mother though they were not heirs of their mother but of their father---Daughter of deceased was not entitled to inherit from the estate as her mother and the widow of the deceased was alive and not because that she got married during the lifetime of deceased---Movable and immovable properties left by the deceased would be inherited by his widow and sons---Widow would take only a limited interest i.e. 'the widow's estate' in the estate of her husband and in the event of her death the estate would be inherited not by her heirs but by the next heirs of her husband i.e. 'reversioners'---Widow had filed her affidavit surrendering and relinquishing her "life interest" in favour of her sons/other legal heirs of the deceased---Movable and immovable properties left by the deceased be divided amongst his two sons---Application for grant of succession certificate and letters of administration was allowed in circumstances

Citation Name  : 2015  CLC  1719           QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Side Appellant : Mst. AISHA
Side Opponent : Mst. MAH GUL
	Ss. 381 & 384---succession certificate---Determining right in legacy---Trial Court, jurisdiction of---Appellants were mother, brother and sister of deceased who claimed their shares in the outstanding dues with government department---Trial Court issued succession certificate to widow of deceased for collection of dues of deceased from government department, where he was employed---Validity---Issuance of certificate did not place bar on the right of appellants (legal heirs) to establish their title and entitlement in debts by a suit before a Court of competent jurisdiction---Issuance of certificate also did not confer any title to holder of certificate, rather certificate was issued with the sole purpose to recover dues from concerned department--- Person aggrieved could press his right through a suit and to recover amount received on the basis of such certificate to the extent of his share on the basis thereof---Trial Court, in the present case, without discussing nature of dues and fact that either it covered legacy of deceased and entitlement of parties before it, ordered to exclude claim of appellants (legal heirs) decided that widow was solely and lonely entitled to receive and encash dues of her late husband and appellants (legal heirs) did not deserve to receive any share out of the dues of deceased--- High Court set aside such findings of Trial Court which erred while recording findings and the same could not hold the field---High Court modified the order passed by Trial Court---Appeal was allowed accordingly

Citation Name  : 2015  CLC  1719          QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Side Appellant : Mst. AISHA
Side Opponent : Mst. MAH GUL
	Ss.381 & 384---succession certificate---Object, scope and purpose---Logic behind S.381 of succession Act, 1925, is to enable a person to recover debts on estate of a deceased but the certificate issued for the purpose neither declares rights of persons interested, nor determine their shares in recoverable debt---Issuance of certificate is with sole purpose to protect party paying debt to holder of certificate---Duty is imposed on holder of certificate to disburse amount realized under certificate among persons entitled, in accordance with their respective rights---Certificate issued under succession Act, 1925, does not confer any title upon a person but only enables him to recover the debts.

Citation Name  : 2015  PLD  132            QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Side Appellant : HIFEEZA
Side Opponent : 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.

Citation Name  : 2015  PLD  127           QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Side Appellant : Mst. RAZYA GHULAM
Side Opponent : The GENERAL PUBLIC
	S. 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.

Citation Name  : 2015  PLD  127           QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Side Appellant : Mst. RAZYA GHULAM
Side Opponent : 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

Citation Name  : 2015  PLD  127           QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Side Appellant : Mst. RAZYA GHULAM
Side Opponent : 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.

Citation Name  : 2015  CLC  282          PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT   Side Appellant : Mrs. NAHEED KAMAL AZFAR   Side Opponent : 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 successioncertificate---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

Citation Name  : 2015  PLD  30     ISLAMABAD
  Side Appellant : Malik MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE
  Side Opponent : Mst. TANVEER JAHAN
S. 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.

______________________________________

Citation Name  : 2014  YLR  465             LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SHAFIQUE AHMAD
Side Opponent : 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 Certificates 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.

Citation Name  : 2014  MLD  1635          LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : FAREED GUL
Side Opponent : 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 certificates---During pendency of proceedings for issuance of succession certificates, three applications were filed one for consolidating both applications for issuance of succession certificates, 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.

Citation Name  : 2014  PLD  541           KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHAF1Q
Side Opponent :
	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

Citation Name  : 2014  CLC  981     KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
  Side Appellant : ABDUL WAHAB
  Side Opponent : ABDUL RASHEED
S. 278---Letter of administration, issuance of---Matters to be considered by court---Scope---Deceased was survived by three daughters and two sons---Respondent (one of the sons of deceased) filed a petition for grant of letter of administration in respect of immovable property left by the deceased---Appellant (other son of deceased) filed objection against the grant of letter of administration on the grounds that immovable property in question was allotted to him; that he incurred large sum of money on the reconstruction of the property in question, and on the marriages of his three sisters; that respondent had already taken his share in the property from the appellant---Validity---While considering issuance of letter of administration, court would only determine questions about assets left by the deceased and inherited by the legal heirs---Appellant was at liberty to avail any remedy available under the law for redressal of his grievances i.e. for recovery, but in no case, in the proceedings under succession Act, 1925 he was supposed to raise any such claims---Even otherwise appellant did not refer to or produce any evidence or document to substantiate his claims---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
_____________________________________
 
  Citation Name  : 2014  CLC  981     KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
  Side Appellant : ABDUL WAHAB
  Side Opponent : 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.

___________________________________________

Citation Name  : 2014  CLC  599     KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
  Side Appellant : Khawaja MUHAMMAD SHAHID
  Side Opponent :
Ss. 278 & 372---Letters of Administration---Non-contentious matter---Petition for grant of Letter of Administration in respect of movable and immovable properties of deceased by son of deceased---succession petition had been duly published in Daily newspapers, and two independent witnesses had also sworn in their affidavits that no other legal heirs of the deceased existed except those present before the Court---Legal heirs of deceased had also submitted affidavits of no objection in favour of the petitioner/son of the deceased---Held, that matter was non-contentious and under such circumstances, the petition was allowed and Letter of Administration was ordered to be granted to the petitioner in respect of the properties and estates left by the deceased, conditional upon the petitioner furnishing one surety---succession petition was allowed, accordingly

____________________________________

 Citation Name  : 2013  CLC  523     QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
  Side Appellant : Haji SULTAN MEHMOOD
  Side Opponent : ZOHRA BIBI
S. 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

___________________________________________

 Citation Name  : 2013  CLC  523     QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
  Side Appellant : Haji SULTAN MEHMOOD
  Side Opponent : 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.

_____________________________

Citation Name  : 2013  MLD  276     PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
  Side Appellant : ATTAULLAH
  Side Opponent : GHULAM SARWAR
S.3---succession to property left by deceased Muslim---Custom or Shariat, applicability of---Scope---Custom would not apply to such succession ---Principles.

____________________________________________________

Citation Name  : 2013  CLC  1834     PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
  Side Appellant : Mst. MEHMOODA BEGUM
  Side Opponent : ZUBAIR AHMAD
S. 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

___________________________________________

 Citation Name  : 2013  MLD  1323     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
  Side Appellant : Mst. NOOR BEGUM
  Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD AKRAM
S.42---Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), Ss.10 & 20---Suit for declaration---succession ---Proprietary rights and inheritance---Plaintiff nowhere stated that all proceedings of conferment of proprietary rights and further mutations were not in his knowledge when defendants were recorded as owners in suit property on the basis of inheritance---Effect---Filing of suit by plaintiff 58 years after mutations challenging the same in suit were time barred---After attestation of mutation in question, various mutations were not challenged whereby plaintiff impliedly admitted validity of mutation in question---When claim of plaintiff stated in plaint, was that his mother transferred suit property in his name under family settlement after she got daughters married, as such the same negated his claim to inherit exclusively whole of the property left by his father---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below being against evidence and contrary to law, resultantly suit filed by plaintiff was dismissed---Revision was allowed in circumstances.

______________________________________________________

Citation Name  : 2013  CLC  395     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
  Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SULEMAN
  Side Opponent : PUBLIC-AT-LARGE
S. 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.

___________________________________________

Citation Name  : 2013  MLD  753     KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
  Side Appellant : NIAZ FARAZ
  Side Opponent : State
S. 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 certificates 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.

______________________________________

Citation Name  : 2013  MLD  129     KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
  Side Appellant : TARIQ SHAFI
  Side Opponent :
S. 371---Petition for issuance of Letter of Administration was rejected on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as deceased had died at place "S" and his immovable property was located at place "R"---Contention of the applicant was that the deceased was shown to have been an ordinary resident at the given address at place "K" and the fact that he died in place "S" and that his property was located at place "R" did not adversely affect the petition before court at place "K"---Validity---Contention had force and was in consonance with S. 371 of the succession Act, 1925---High Court set aside impugned order and remanded case to Trial Court for decision on merits---Application was allowed, in circumstances.

______________________________________________

Citation Name  : 2013  CLC  406     KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
  Side Appellant : AZIZ AHMED
  Side Opponent : 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.

_____________________________________________________

 Citation Name  : 2013  CLC  406     KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
  Side Appellant : AZIZ AHMED
  Side Opponent : 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.

__________________________________________________________

Citation Name  : 2013  CLC  370     KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
  Side Appellant : Mst. RUKHSANA
  Side Opponent : PROVINCE OF SINDH through Home Secretary
Inheritance---succession to estate/property of deceased Muslim, opening of---Scope---Estate/property of a Muslim upon his death would automatically and immediately vest in his surviving legal heirs according to their Islamic shares without any intervention or act on part of any authority---Principles

________________________________________________

Citation Name  : 2013  CLC  370     KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
  Side Appellant : Mst. RUKHSANA
  Side Opponent : PROVINCE OF SINDH through Home Secretary
S. 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.

__________________________________________

Citation Name  : 2013  CLC  339     KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
  Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ
  Side Opponent :
S. 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.

_________________________________

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

S. 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  CLC  260     KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
  Side Appellant : Mst. SAMINA NAZ
  Side Opponent : BABY DUA SAEED alias HIBA through her Mother and Natural Guardian

__________________________

Succession Act
Section 372 General provident Fund, leave salary, leave encashment and gratuity being in nature of tarka should 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. 2014 CLC 126 Peshawar

__________________________________

PLD 2015 SINDH 360 provident fund. Gratuity etc.

__________________________________

INHERITANCE - AMOUNT OF BENEVOLENT FUND AND GROUP INSURANCE WITH THE DEVOLVE UPON OF THE HEIRS OF THE HEIRS OF HIS TARKAT MOTHER OF WHO EXPRESSED, WHO WITH NOMINEE, EXCLUSIVELY TO EXCLUSIVELY TO CLAIM SUCH AMOUNTS TO THE EXCLUSIVE TO HERARI OTHER LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED SINDH LEGAL HELP GROUP 2005 SCMR 512

___________________________________

2015  PLD  360
Group insurance and benevolent fund--Scope-Benevolent fund and Group insurance " amount would not be part of "Tarka"

____________________________________

TARKA
[11/12 16:27] SAJJAD ALI: 2018  CLC  392     ISLAMABAD
  Side Appellant : FARHAT NIGAR
  Side Opponent : The AUDITOR GENERAL OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN
Tarka of deceased---General Provident Fund, Benevolent Fund, Group insurance and Assistance Package--- Deceased left behind two widows, four daughters and a son, after his demise controversy had arisen with regard to distribution of his Tarka (legacy)---Petitioner (widow) and her daughter invoked constitutional jurisdiction of High Court seeking direction for release of pension and other benefits of deceased and same was allowed---Other widow and her children assailed order passed by the single Judge of High Court on the plea that General Provident Fund, Benevolent Fund, Group insurance and Assistance Package did not fall in definition of Tarka and were to be paid to nominee only---Validity---Widow with one daughter inherited pension benefits and similar payments including Group insurance and Benevolent Fund which she, along with her daughter, was entitled to share with other widow and her children---Division Bench of High Court directed the authorities to make payments of benefits and claims of deceased to both the widows along with other heirs; in case any payment was received by one widow and her children in excess of their share same would be recovered for payment to other widow and her minor daughter--- Intra court appeal was allowed accordingly.
[11/12 16:29] SAJJAD ALI:  2014  PLD  290     KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
  Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NASEEM AHMAD
  Side Opponent : 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.

[11/12 16:30] SAJJAD ALI:  2015  PLD  360     KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
  Side Appellant : ERUM
  Side Opponent : Mst. AMEENA
S. 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.

____________________________________

مڙس زال کي طلاق جو ڏنل نوٽيس 90 ڏينهن تائين واپس وٺي سگهي ٿو ۔

۔

2016 MLD 218

_____________________________________

2011-CLC-1528 (Kar)Mulsim law.Inheritance of deceased Govt Servant.
Death of employee during service -payment of gratuity,family pension,leave encashment ,group insurance and General Provident fund.Deceased nominated his mother to receive group insurance & family pension & gratuity.Since benefits payable to deceased  remained unpaid being part of his estate and heritable by all his legal heirs according to the respective shares.The benifits such as gratuity,group insurance,and family pension being grants and concessions on part of employer to an employee after his death could not be treated as heritable by all of heirs of employee, would be received by beneficiary thereof under service rules and regulations of employer.adas

________________________________

PLD-2018-Sindh-251.
Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925).
Ss-283,284,299 & 372.Succession Certificate-Provident Fund, Gratuity,Group Insurance,selary dues,leave encashment,Benevolent  Fund & welfare grant.Deceased was issueless and survived by his widow,2 sisters,2 brothers-One of the brother applied for succession certificate.Trial court issued S.C in favour of widow & excluded the appellant.Widow was not entitled  for S.C in her favour.Widow applied that she was the nominee and entitled for such funds P.F,Gratuity,Group Insurance,W.F, & B.F without having any source of obtaining a Succession Certificate, it was to be granted for distribution of salary dues to legal heirs.Amount of concerned P.F,Gretuity,Group Insurance,W.F & B.Funds would be released to Widow of deceased employee as required under law after verification & satisfaction , as Succession Certificate for release of such amount was not required.Pl see 2011-CLC-1528 (Sindh) adas

_____________________________________

Inheritance---Tarka---Scope---Employee benefits---Group Term/Life insurance , insurance against General Provident Fund (G.P.F), General Provident Fund, arrears of family pension, arrears of Benevolent Grant, and Pension Commutation---Whatever benefits an employee could claim from its employer during his life time were to be treated as part of "Tarka" and being inheritable, were to be distributed amongst the legal heirs only according to shariah --- At the same time, the benefits which an employee was not entitled to claim from the employer during his lifetime and were to be matured on his / her death, did not form part of the "Tarka" and could be handed over to a nominee, if there was any ---Group Term / Life insurance , insurance against General Provident Fund (G.P.F), arrears of family pension, and arrears of Benevolent Grant, were not part of the "Tarka" as they could not be claimed by the deceased in his/her lifetime---Whereas amount of General Provident Fund, salary of certain number of days and pension commutation, could be claimed by employee at least when he/she was to retire, therefore, said categories of benefits available were part of the "Tarka" hence, were to be distributed amongst the legal heirs.

2019  PLD  1     KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
  Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD JAVED
  Side Opponent : Mst. ROSHAN JAHAN

____________________________________