2022 PLP 195 (YLRN)

LUBNA SALEEM PERVEZ, J.

Through this judgment I intend to dispose of the following cases:-- (i) R.F.A. No. 84 of 2020, filed by Majeed Ahmad Mubarak, Mureed Ahmad Mubarak and Aneesa Begum, against judgment dated 31.01.2020, passed in Civil Suit No. 495 of 2015, for declaration and cancellation of will deeds dated 12.02.2009 and 14.05.2008, executed by deceased Laiqa Iftikhar. (ii) R.F.A. No. 149 of 2020, filed by Masroor Ahmad, against judgment dated 31.01.2020, passed in Civil Suit No. 495 of 2015, filed for declaration and permanent injunction. (iii) FAO No. 43 of 2020, filed by Majeed Ahmad Mubarak, Mureed Ahmad Mubarak and Aneesa Begam against order dated 31.01.2020, in Succession Petition No. 19 of 2015.

2. The learned Trial Court has disposed of Civil Suit Nos. 495 of 2015 and 343 of 2016 through a consolidated judgment and decree dated 31.01.2020 whereby, it was held that the legacy of deceased Laiqa Iftikhar shall be equally distributed amongst her nephews Saleem Ahmad Tahir and Masroor Ahmad. Whereas, Succession Petition No. 19/ 2015, was also disposed of through a separate order dated 31.01.2020, whereby Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 namely Saleem Ahmad Tahir and Masroor Ahmad were declared as legal heirs of deceased Laiqa Iftikhar.

3. Necessary facts of the case are that Mst. Laiqa Iftikhar was a widow who died issueless on 01.03.2015 (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). Father of the deceased had two wives namely Mst. Zainab (first wife/mother of the deceased) and Mst. Rabia Bushra (second wife). Rashid Ahmad, Saeed Ahmad, Hamida Iffat, Saeeda Farhat were real brothers and sisters of the deceased and all of them died during life time of Mst. Laiqa Iftikhar (deceased). Majeed Ahmad Mubarak, Mureed Ahmad Mubarak and Aneesa Begum (hereinafter referred to as Majeed, etc.) are deceased's step brothers and sister from step mother (Mst. Rabina Bushra). Appellant in R.F.A. No. 149/2020, namely Masroor Ahmad (hereinafter referred to as Masroor) is the son of real brother of the deceased, namely Saeed Ahmad (late) and Saleem Ahmad Tahir is the son of real sister of deceased namely Saeeda Farhat (late).

4. Majeed, etc., considering themselves to be the lawful legal heirs of the deceased filed petition for issuance of succession certificate before Civil Judge 1st Class, West-Islamabad, on 02.05.2015, vide Succession Petition No. 19/2015, for the legacy left by deceased. Subsequently, Masroor and Saleem Ahmad Tahir through application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. were impleaded as Respondents Nos. 1 and

2. The succession petitions were decided in favour of Masroor and Saleem Ahmad Tahir, vide order dated 31.01.2020. Being aggrieved with the said order, Majeed, etc. filed F.A.O. No. 43/2020, before this Court seeking following prayer:- "It is therefore respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may very graciously be pleased to accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2020, and declare the Appellants as only legal heirs of the deceased, thus entitled to successions in the best interest of justice.".

5. Majeed, etc. had also filed Civil Suit bearing No. 495 of 2015 on 08.06.2015, for declaration and cancellation of will deeds dated 14.05.2008 and 12.02.2009. One Civil Suit No. 378 of 2015 was filed by Masroor seeking declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against National Savings Center and Majeed, etc claiming inheritance in respect of investments of Rs.5,297,000/- of the deceased in National Savings. The learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Islamabad-West, consolidated the suits filed by both the parties and from their pleadings framed following issues for decision:- "

1. Whether the plaintiff of Civil Suit No. 495/15 titled "Majeed Ahmed v. National Savings, etc." is entitled to get a decree for declaration, cancellation, permanent and mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the will deeds dated 21.03.2009 and 14.05.2008 are null and void and liable to be cancelled to the extent of right of legal heirs of deceased and the will deeds can be implemented only to the extent of 1/3? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff (Majeed Ahmed) is not maintainable in its present form? OP Parties

4. Whether the defendant Masroor Ahmed (plaintiff in Civil Suit No.378/2015 titled "Masroor Ahmed v. National Savings Center") is entitled to get a decree for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPD

5. Whether the suit of the defendant (Masroor Ahmed) is not maintainable in its present form? OPP

6. Whether the plaintiff Majeed Ahmed (plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 743/2016 tilted "Majeed Ahmed v. Saleem Ahmed, etc.') is entitled to get a decree for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction, as prayed for ? OPP

7. Whether the suit of the defendant (Majeed Ahmed) is not maintainable in its present form? OPD

8. Whether the defendant Saleem Ahmed (plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 373/2016 titled "Saleem Ahmed vs. National Savings Center, etc.') is entitled to get a decree for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPD

9. Whether the suit of the defendant (Saleem Ahmed) is not maintainable in its present form? OPP 9-A. Whether the National Saving Center, 1-8, Islamabad had a power to release an amount of Rs. 41 lac to Dr. Saleem Ahmed Tahir as nominee after the death of Laiqa Iftikhar the account holder? OPD 9-B. Whether in case No. 378/ 2015 titled "Masroor Ahmed v. National Saving Center, etc." the plaintiff is eligible to draw/ encashment amount of certificates from deceased account as nominee? OPD 9-C. Whether in case No. 378/2015 titled "Masroor Ahmed v. National Saving Center, etc." the plaintiff being son of sister/brother of deceased is legal heir in presence of brothers and sisters of deceased, as per "Fiqa Ahmadyyia"? OPD

10. Relief". The learned Trial Court answered the issues in the following terms: Issues Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7

15. As per the law of the land a testator cannot bequeath more than 1/3 of his / her net estate unless the other heirs consent of the bequest or there are no legal heirs at all or the only legal heirs is the spouse who gets his/her legal share and the residue can be bequeathed, hence the Will deeds dated 14.05.2008 and 21.03.2009, beyond 1/3 are not valid, hence are cancelled to that extent. Issue No. 2 is therefore, decided in the affirmative. Issues Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, 9A, 9B and 9C.

19. In light of the above findings the Suit No. 495/2015 (Majeed Ahmed Mubarad v. National Saving Center etc) and Suit No.743/2016 (Majeed Ahmed Mubarad v. Saleem Ahmed etc.) are partially allowed i.e. only to the extent that the bequeath declared vide Will deeds dated 14.05.2018 and 21.03.2009, beyond the prescribed limit of 1/3 are declared null and void and that the defendant Salim Ahmed Tahir being nominee was not entitled to withdraw amount of Rs. 41,00,000/- from the said account. Similarly Suits No. 378/2015 and Suit No. 373/2016, filed by Masroor Ahmed and Saleem Ahmed Tahir, respectively are disposed of with the observations that they are entitled as legal heirs to receive their respective shares from the legal left behind by Laiqa Iftikhar as per the Ahmadi's personal law while their prayer of entitlement on the basis of nominations is dismissed.". The learned trial Court after answer-ing the issues, concluded as under:-- "Relief:

20. For what has been discussed above, it is held that (Masroor Ahmed and Salim Ahmed Tahir), as per the Ahmadi's Personal law are equally entitled to the legacy of Laiqa Iftikhar which shall be equally distributed amongst both after deduction of the will monies and the amount already withdrew by Salim Ahmed Tahir from his share.".

6. The consolidated judgment and decree dated 31.01.2020, passed by learned Trial Court, was assailed through the R.F.A. No. 84/2020 by Majeed etc. seeking following prayer:-- "It is therefore respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may very graciously be pleased to accept this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.01.2020 to the extent it declares the nephews of the deceased as her legal heirs, and declare the Appellants as only legal heirs of the deceased, thus entitled to her legacy.".

7. Masroor Ahmed/Appellant in R.F.A. No. 149/2020, challenged the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2020, and prayed as follows:-- "It is therefore respectfully prayed that the instant appeal may kindly be accepted by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree wherein appellant's claim as nominee was declined, in order to meet the ends of justice.".

8. Hafiz Shoaib Ahmad, learned counsel representing Majeed, etc./ Appellants in F.A.O. No. 43/2020 and R.F.A. 84/2020 submitted that the deceased as well as Majeed, etc. and Masroor Ahmad belong to Fiqh-e-Ahmadiyya(sic); that the learned Trial Court has misinterpreted the provisions of inheritance of Personal Law of Fiqh-e-Ahmadiyya(sic) that the learned Trial Court has wrongly declared the nephews (Masoor Ahmad and Saleem Ahmad Tahir) of deceased as her legal heirs in the presence of Majeed, etc, her step brother and step sister (consanguine brothers and sister) who are still alive; that the learned Trial Court has unlawfully held that Majeed, etc have failed to establish their legal right in the legacy of deceased; that the nephews have no lawful right of inheritance in the order of classes of relations as legal heirs under Fiqh-e-Ahmadiyya (Volume-II of Personal law published by Idarat-ul-Musan feen Rab'wa); that according to the Ahmadiyya Personal Law, the class and contiguity of the relation with the deceased are to be considered simultaneously. He referred to Chapter 3 of the Fiqh-e-Ahmadiyya (Vol-II), and submitted that according to the classification of Asaba'at in the absence of son, grandson and great grandson (means successor of the deceased) and father, grandfather and great grandfather (means ancestor of the deceased), the successors from real father's lineage would inherit the legacy of deceased in which class the brothers of deceased come first and then brother's son and thereafter brother's grandson have been order wise classified as Asaba'at of the deceased for the purposes of inheritance. He submitted that Majeed, etc. are admittedly the brothers and sister of the deceased from the father's lineage and the learned Trial Court has wrongly interpreted the classification of the relations defined in the Ahmadiyaa Personal Law for the purposes of distributing the legacy of deceased as according to the said classification the son of the deceased's brother stood after surviving brothers/sisters of the deceased; that the brother includes step-brother since, both have father as a common parent; that Dr. Saleem Ahmad Tahir, is sister's son (nephew) of the deceased, appointed as nominee on the form of investment in the National Savings Center, has no right to inherit the property of the deceased according to the law of inheritance of Fiqah-e-Ahmadiyya(sic); he can only act as a caretaker on behalf of his aunt (deceased) in respect of the investments in National Savings; that therefore, the amount of Rs.4,100,000/- has been illegally withdrawn by Dr. Saleem Ahmad Tahir from National Savings.

9. Sardar Tariq Hussain, learned counsel for Respondent Masroor Ahmad, while countering the arguments made on behalf of Majeed, etc submitted that being step-siblings of the deceased, Majeed, etc had no cause of action and locus standi; that Masroor Ahmad and Saleem Ahmad Tahir, being real nephew of the deceased and duly appointed nominees, have every right of inheritance from the property of the deceased; that the deceased on her own free will appointed Dr. Saleem Ahmad Tahir, as her nominee in respect of investment in National Savings in respect of account Nos.PBA141 and SSA1716 and, therefore, he is also entitled to receive/inherit the amount as a nominee; that according to Fiqh-e-Ahmadiya(sic), Masroor Ahmad and Saleem Ahmad Tahir are included in the list of legal heirs of the deceased by placing reliance on the Fiqh-e-Ahmadiyaa published by Idarat-ul-Musanfeen Rab'wa; he supported the impugned judgment to the extent of entitlement of Masroor Ahmed and Saleem Ahmad Tahir from the legacy of deceased as legal heirs but assailed the findings, vide impugned judgment that role of the nominee is that of the trustee and nomination merely confers a right to collect money and a nominee cannot deprive other legal heirs on the basis of such nomination. He lastly submitted that R.F.A. No. 84/2020, and F.A.O. No. 43/2020, filed by Majeed, etc are liable to be dismissed.

10. Arguments heard. Record perused.

11. Main controversy in the present R.F.As. as well as F.A.O. is whether Majeed, etc. who are consanguine/step-brothers/sister having father as common parent or nephews being real sons of brother/sister of the deceased have rights of legal heirs to inherit the property (investments) left behind by an issueless widow Mst. Laiqa Iftikhar (deceased). The deceased as well as the claimant of inheritance of the deceased profess Fiqh-e-Ahmadiyya(sic). To explain the law of inheritance as per Fiqh-e-Ahmadiyya, both the learned counsel have referred Fiqh-e-Ahmadiyya, (Personal Law) Volume-II, published by Idarat-ul-Musanfeen Rab'wa, according to which there are three classes of heirs of deceased person which are sharers in deceased's inheritance; residuary and distinct kindered. Chapter-3 of the book Fiqh-e-Ahmadiyya, Volume-II,), " " defines legal heirs whose shares in the deceased legacy have been determined in the Holy Quran e.g. mother, wife, husband, etc. The next class of heirs, who have rights to inherit from the legacy of the deceased are residuaries termed as " " who are those heirs who have no definite shares as per Holy Quran, but get the shares in the order of succession such as son, grandson, father, etc. after deducting the loan (if any), wills or bequeaths of the deceased and after distribution of shares amongst sharers The " "/ "Residuraies" have been serial wise classified in Fiqh-e-Ahmadiyya as per book referred by both the parties, as under:-

12. The above classification describes the order of succession i.e. the descendants of the deceased i.e. son, grandson, great grandson, etc. are the first in the order of residuaries to receive the inheritance. In case the deceased has no direct descendants then the ascendants of the deceased i.e. father, grandfather, great grandfather, etc. would be the legal heirs of the deceased. In case there are neither descendants nor ascendants, then the descendants of father i.e. brother, their brother's son and their brother's grandson, etc. become the legal heirs. If neither of descendant and ascendant nor descendant of the father is alive, then in that case, the property of the deceased is to be distributed amongst the descendant of paternal grandfather i.e. father's brother; then father's brother's son and then father's brother's grandson, etc. According to the Fiqh-e-Ahmadiyya Personal Law, if the recipient of inheritance includes male and female " " then the male " " will get the double of female. Thus, the assets of the deceased, who have no direct descendants (children) would be distributed amongst the ascendants or descendants of the father of the deceased and as per order of successors, according to personal law, legal heir the nearest in relation excludes rest. The case in hand has been considered keeping in view the above principle of inheritance laid down in the Personal Law of Fiqh-e-Ahmadiyya, Volume-II, published by Idarat-ul-Musan 'feen Rab'wa relied upon by both the parties is considered as the authentic book of Ahmadiyya sect, according to which the right of inheritance would be determined on the basis of class of relation and proximity of relation with the deceased. Both class and proximity are to be considered simultaneously to decide the question of inheritance of legal heir having legal right to inherit the property of the deceased. It is an admitted fact that the deceased is a widow; issueless; the father of the deceased had two wives; all real brothers and sisters from the same mother, have expired during the life time of deceased and the father of the deceased is survived by two sons and a daughter (Majeed etc.) from his second wife (Mst. Rabia Bushra), who are consanguine brothers and sister of the deceased thus, according to Ahmadiyya Personal law, they become legal heirs of the deceased as residuary inheritors/heirs, being descendants of the father as per classification of . The right of inheritance of nephew/ brother's son (Masroor Ahmad) as per order of succession would accrue only when the immediate descendants of the deceased's real father have also expired. However, in no case nephews/Sister's son, in the present case Dr. Saleem Ahmad Tahir, has any right of inheritance from the property of the deceased according to Fiqh-e-Ahmadiyya.

13. It is also worth mentioning that vide Chapter-I of the said Fiqh-e-Ahmadiyya, Volume-II, the assets/ property left behind by the deceased would be distributed after payment of burial expenses, debt (if any) of the deceased and also will or bequeath made by the deceased during her life time. Perusal of the record reveals that deceased Laiqa Iftikhar, when alive, made two wills, first on 14.05.2008 and second on 21.03.2009. The learned Trial Court while passing impugned order dated 31.01.2020, has declared the will beyond 1/3 of the wealth to be invalid and cancelled the same to that extent. I fully endorse the views of the learned Trial Court as in the Ahmadiyya sect also the testator cannot bequeath more than 1/3 of his/her wealth/belongings except with the consent of the other legal heirs. The impugned judgment dated 31.01.2020, to extent of issue related to will of the deceased is upheld.

14. The appellant in R.F.A. No. 149/ 2020 is aggrieved with the following observation of learned Trial Court, made vide impugned judgment dated 31.01.2020:- "

18. The plaintiffs of Suits Nos.378/15 and 373/16, although in view of the Ahmadi's Personal law are entitled to receive their respective shares form the Legacy of Laiqa Iftikhar, however, their claim to the extent of their seeking entitlement on the basis of being nominees of the said accounts is unwarranted by law. Not only as per the rules and regulations of National Savings Center but the Hon'ble Superior Courts of Pakistan too on numerous occasions have declared that the role of a nominee is that of a trustee and nomination merely confers a right to collect money and a nominee cannot deprive other legal heirs on the basis of such nominations.".

15. The nephews of the deceased/ Masroor and Saleem Ahmad Tahir in their civil suits, besides claiming rights of legal heirs, also claimed the amount invested in National Savings on the basis of being nominee appointed by the deceased. It appears that the deceased while investing her amount in National Savings had made two nominees namely (i) Dr. Saleem Ahmad Tahir/nephew/sister's son, and (ii) Masroor Ahmad/nephew/brother's son in the printed form of investment, as such, being a nominee they consider themselves to be authorized owners of such investment, after the death of Mst. Laiqa Iftikhar.

16. Learned counsel for Majeed, etc. submitted that the nominee cannot claim any right in the property of the deceased as he has no superior right over the rights of legal heirs under the personal law of inheritance. In support of his submission, he relied on case re: Muhammad Umar Gondal v. Muhammad Umar (deceased) etc. (2020 YLR 1268 Karachi) wherein it has been held that:-- "

10. The alleged status of the nominee has since long acquired a settled legal position whereby it stands determined that a nominee more especially before a cooperative society has no other/superior legal rights except to what he has to his own rights under the personal law of inheritance and that the said nominee only represents all the legal heirs, a nominee as such does not become an owner by virtue of being appointed as a nominee. This legal position is well established and is the settled law in this regard, consistently so held by the Honorable Supreme Court in the reported cases of Mst. Amtul Habib v. Mussarat Perveen PLD 1974 SC page 185, Fazal Shah v. Mohammad Deen 1990 SCMR page 868 and lastly in the case of Manzoor Ahmad v. Salman Bibi 1998 SCMR page 388 being "That the import of law of succession could not be frustrated by act or omission and that the nomination and membership of Cooperative cannot defeat the law of succession".

17. This Court also in the case reported as Shahnaz Parveen v. Javed Yaqoob (2020 MLD 638 Islamabad), after considering all the judgments on the issue of rights of the nominee, has held as under:-- "It is well-settled that the nomination of any person by an allottee of a plot of land or an account holder by itself does not make the nominee the sole beneficiary or the owner of such land or account after the demise of the original allottee or account holder. The estate of the original allottee or the account holder devolves on all his legal heirs in accordance with the injunctions of Islam regardless of any particular person nominated by him. Such a nominee remains accountable to all the legal heirs of the deceased for the devolution of the deceased's estate in accordance with the injunctions of Islam. In holding so, we place reliance on the following case law:-- (i) In the case of Muhammad Bakhsh v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima (2007 SCMR 1227), it was held that nomination of a person by the late allottee of a cooperative forming society would not, by itself deprive his legal heirs to inherit the estate of the deceased. Furthermore, it was held that allottee's interests and rights in the land allotted to him by the society stood to devolve upon his legal heirs under Muslim Personal Law of inheritance notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of the society. (ii) In the case of Mst. Ameeran Khatoon v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar (2005 SCMR 512), the petitioner's case was that on account of being the deceased's mother as well as his nominee, she was exclusively entitled to the amount of benevolent fund and group insurance. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court since the deceased was not entitled to the benevolent fund and group insurance during his lifetime, such amounts would be deemed to be owned by him upon his death and devolved upon his legal heirs being his "tarka". Accordingly, it was held that the petitioner would not be entitled to exclusively claim these amounts except to the extent of her entitlement as per shariah along with other legal heirs of the deceased. (iii) In the case of Amtul Habib v. Musarrat Parveen (PLD 1974 SC 185), it was held at Page 191, as follows: "Apart from this, it appears to us that, unless a nomination can amount to a valid gift inter vivos, it cannot pass title to the nominee in respect of immovable property, nor can the making of a nomination give the right to the nominator at his own choice to change the law of succession which would otherwise be applicable in the case of his death. Obviously, the nomination cannot operate as a valid gift under the Muhammadan Law because, such a gift, in order to confer title on the donee, must be accompanied by delivery of possession of the property gifted. In the case of plots allotted to Muhammad Yakub, there could be no delivery of possession at the time the nomination was made for, at that time, no plot had been allotted to him." (iv) In the case of Kamal Afzal Farooqui v. Begum Shahzada Farooqui (1989 CLC 110), it was held that a nominee of the deceased could not claim to be the absolute owner of the deceased's immovable property to the exclusion of all other legal heirs of the deceased. (v) In the case of Muhammad Sohail Anjum Khan v. Abdul Rasheed Khan (2003 MLD 1095), it was held that the position of a nominee is merely that of a trustee of the owner of the property and he could not become the owner of the property after the demise of the original owner. Furthermore, it was held that such a nominee remains accountable to the legal heirs of the original owner for all the benefits derived out of the property. Since the author of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mushir Alam, rose to grace the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the ratio in the said judgment deserves respect and reverence.

18. Further in the case titled as Aziz Ahmad v. Hakinizada (2013 CLC 406 Karachi) it has been held that:-- "It is now settled principle of law that nominee is not entitled as owner of the amount subject-matter in the Succession matters, is the only representative and legal, duty bound to receive the amount and disburse amongst the legal heirs".

19. In the case of Bushra Farooq v. Shabana Rafiq (2002 CLC 1502), the Hon'ble Court, with regard to the 'nomination' in the Defence Savings Certificate Rules, has observed that Rule 13 is in direct conflict with the substantive law of inheritance and, therefore, the rules being sub-ordinate legislation would not override or prevail over the law of inheritance. The relevant observation is reproduced below:- "As regards the legal effect of nomination it is relevant to observe here that the provision of nomination in the Rules wherever it defeats the right of heirs is to be interpreted strictly as this provision of the Rule derogates from the general law that in case of inheritance the Muslim Personal Law is applicable to the parties. Rule 13 of the Defence Saving Certificates Rules makes a provision for nomination and the claim of defendant No. 1 is based on this provision, but since it is flagrantly in direct conflict with the substantive law of inheritance it can legitimately be observed that the substantive law should prevail and the rules being subordinate legislation shall give way to it. In any manner it is imperative to give effect to the provision of the law of inheritance notwithstanding the conflict.".

20. The upshot of the above mentioned authoritative judgments of the superior courts is that nominee has no independent right of inheritance of the estate/assets in which he/she was nominated as nominee and any nomination by the deceased while alive would not prevail over the rights of the legal heirs over the property, left behind by the deceased; the nomination would not by itself operate as a gift or will; the nominee only acts as a trustee who cannot become the owner of the property in the event of death of the original owner and that the mandate of the nominee is to look after the property and distribute the same amongst the legal heirs of the deceased. Thus, the rules enforced under National Savings schemes, whereby the nominee has been given the rights to receive amount of investment, the property in the event the death of the purchaser/original owner, cannot override the law of inheritance which is a substantive law that gives the right to inherit the tarka of the deceased to the legal heir.

21. In view of the above established principles regarding the status of the nominee, I am in agreement with the view taken by the learned Trial Court that nominee cannot deprive the legal heirs from their share in the property of the deceased on the basis of nomination.

22. For what has been discussed above, R.F.A. No. 149/2020 is dismissed, whereas, R.F.A. No. 84/2020 is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 31.01.2020, is set-aside to the extent of declaring Saleem Ahmad Tahir and Masroor Ahmad as legal heirs of the deceased Laiqa Iftikhar; Appellants Majeed, etc are declared to be the legal heirs of deceased Mst. Laiqa Iftikhar under the Personal Law of Fiqh-e-Ahmadiyaa(sic). The observation in the impugned judgment dated 31.10.2020, with regard to rejecting the contention of Masroor, etc. for claiming ownership on the basis of nomination, under the rules and regulations of National Savings Center, is upheld. Decree sheet be prepared, accordingly. F.A.O. No. 43/2020 (Majeed Ahmad Mubarak and others v. Saleem Ahmad Tahir and another):

23. Consequently, F.A.O. No. 43/ 2020, filed by Majeed, etc. is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2020, is set-aside. Resultantly, Majeed, etc are declared as legal heirs and successors of the deceased Laiqa Iftikhar. Succession Certificate be Issued subject to deposit of surety in the like amount, in accordance with law. The learned Trial Court is directed to issue the Succession Certificate, accordingly. Moreover, withdrawal of an amount of Rs. 41,00,000/- by Dr. Saleem Ahmed Tahir from National Savings Centre, on the basis of being nominee of deceased, is declared as illegal and unjustified. MH/128/Isl. Order accordingly.