P L D 2020 Sindh 713 (PLP)
(Late) Major (Rtd.) Syed TANVIR ALI — Petitioner Versus Syeda RAFAT EIJAZ — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2020 Sindh 713 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | (Late) Major (Rtd.) Syed TANVIR ALI — Petitioner Versus Syeda RAFAT EIJAZ — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925), (a) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2020 Sindh 713 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925), (a) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2020 Sindh 713 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2020 Sindh 713 (PLP) ((Late) Major (Rtd.) Syed TANVIR ALI — Petitioner Versus Syeda RAFAT EIJAZ — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalid Mahmood Siddiqui for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 278 & 372
Letter of Administration and Succession certificate, issuance of
Requirement of furnishing surety, exemption from
Scope
Object of requiring surety was to secure the interest of any such person who may have a share, interest or claim in the movable or immovable assets left by the deceased, such as, a legal heir whose name had not been disclosed to the Court or who was not before the Court, 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 Letters of Administration or Succession Certificate, or a creditor of the deceased
If the Court was satisfied that none of the said situations existed in the case before it, it may dispense with the (requirement of) furnishing of surety while granting Letters of Administration or Succession Certificate
Such power of the Court was discretionary and the person applying for Letters of Administration or Succession Certificate could not seek such discretion in his favour as a matter of right
Exercise of discretion shall depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, however such discretion should be exercised liberally keeping in view the hardship that may be faced by the legal heirs of the deceased in furnishing surety, who may not have any other or additional property of their own to offer as surety
In some cases, the legal heirs may not be in a position to offer even the inherited property as security.
S. 278
Letters of Administration, grant of
Requirement of furnishing surety, exemption from
Petitioner-widow contended that present matter was an uncontested matter, as no one, including all other legal heirs had opposed present petition; that in fact all legal heirs had submitted their affidavits of no objection in favour of the petitioner, therefore, she may be exempted from furnishing surety for the grant of Letters of Administration in her name on execution of personal bond by her
Held, that notice of present petition was published in a daily newspaper and was also affixed on the Court Notice Board
As per the report submitted by the Deputy Registrar (O.S.), about a month after the publication in the newspaper, no objection whatsoever had been received from any quarter, therefore, the discretion of dispensing with the requirement of furnishing surety for issuance of Letters of Administration could be exercised in favour of the petitioner
Since all the formalities had been completed as per rules there appeared to be no impediment in the grant of Letters of Administration in the name of the petitioner
Accordingly subject to the filing of a statement by the petitioner duly supported by her affidavit within one week stating that there were no liabilities of the deceased that required settlement, and further subject to her executing personal bond equivalent to the value of the immovable property left by the deceased, the High Court gave directions for issuance of Letters of Administration in the name of the petitioner
Petition was allowed.
Judgment & Decree
NADEEM AKHTAR, J.
The petitioner Syeda Rafat Eijaz has filed this petition under Section 278 of the Succession Act, 1925, for the grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the immovable properties left by her late husband -Major (Retd.) Syed Tanvir Ali son of Syed Khateeb Ali ('the deceased'), who passed away at Karachi on 06.03.2015 at the age of 70 years. It is stated in the petition that the deceased died intestate and is survived by the following five (05) legal heirs who all are majors (i) Syeda Raffat Eijaz Widow Petitioner (ii) Erum Tanvir daughter (iii) Sana Tanvir daughter (iv) Syed Muhammad Ali Tanvir son (v) Muhammad Ahsan Tanvir son
2. In support of this petition the petitioner has filed (a) original death certificate dated 26.03.2015 of the deceased, (b) copy of the certificate dated 12.03.2015 confirming burial of the deceased, (c) original family registration certificate issued by NADRA on 30.01.2012 showing names of all the above named legal heirs as family members of the deceased, and (d) copies of title documents in favour of the deceased in respect of the immovable properties fully described in the Schedule attached to the petition.
3. Legal heirs mentioned at serial Nos.(ii) to (v) above have submitted their affidavits stating that they have no objection if Letters of Administration are issued in the name of the petitioner. The petition is also supported by the affidavits of two witnesses, who are present in Court along with the petitioner. In compliance of the order passed on 25.05.2015, the petitioner has filed her personal affidavit in support of Schedule 'B' containing the list and valuation of immovable properties left by the deceased. On my query, the petitioner who is present in person stated that there are no liabilities of the deceased that require settlement. She undertakes to file a statement to this effect duly supported by her affidavit within one week from today.
4. The petitioner has prayed that she may be exempted from furnishing sureties as per Rules and Letters of Administration be issued in her name on execution of personal bond by her. Her learned counsel submits that since this is an uncontested matter, no one has come forward to oppose this petition and all other legal heirs have submitted their affidavits of no objection in favour of the petitioner she may be exempted from furnishing surety for the grant of Letters of Administration in her name. He has placed reliance upon Kamran Mirza v. Moazzam Mirza PLD 2014 Sindh 500 in support of his contention.
5. The object of requiring surety is to secure the interest of any such person who may have a share, interest or claim in the movable or immovable assets left by the deceased, such as, a legal heir whose name has not been disclosed to the Court or who is not before the Court, a minor legal heir or a legal heir of unsound mind whose share is retained by the Court, or a legal heir whose share is not distributed to him in accordance with law after the grant of Letters of Administration or Succession Certificate, or a creditor of the deceased. In my humble opinion, if the Court is satisfied that none of the above situations exist in the case before it, it may dispense with the furnishing of surety while granting Letters of Administration or Succession Certificate. I am also of the view that such power of the Court is discretionary and the person applying for Letters of Administration or Succession Certificate cannot seek such discretion in his favour as a matter of right. It goes without saying that the exercise of discretion shall depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, such discretion should be exercised liberally keeping in view the hardship that may be faced by the legal heirs of the deceased in furnishing surety, who may not have any other or additional property of their own to offer as surety. In some cases, the legal heirs may not be in a position to offer even the inherited property as security.
6. Notice of this petition was published in Urdu daily 'Jang' on 13.04.2015, and was also affixed on the Court Notice Board. As per the report submitted by the Deputy Registrar (O.S.) on 14.05.2015, no objection whatsoever has been received from any quarter. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the discretion of dispensing with the requirement of furnishing surety can be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Since all the formalities have been completed as per rules there appears to be no impediment in the grant of Letters of Administration in the name of the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed subject to the filing of a statement by the petitioner duly supported by her affidavit within one week from today stating that there are no liabilities of the deceased that require settlement and further subject to her executing personal bond equivalent to the value of the immovable property left by the deceased, let Letters of Administration be issued in the name of the petitioner. MWA/R-15/Sindh Petition allowed.