P L D 1972 Karachi 177 (PLP)

Representation

• This is a reference by the Additional Registrar (O. S.) on the question whether court‑fee under the Act of 1889 is leviable also in respect of succession certificate granted by this Court under the Carriage by Air (International Convention) Act IX of 1966. Having received this reference I issued notice to the A. A.‑G. and I have today heard the learned Advocate. General Raja Said Akbar for the State and Wing Commander K. M. Akbar, Advocate for the petitioner, to whom the certificate In this case was granted. The learned Advocate‑General with reference to rule 6 of the 2nd Schedule of Act IX of 1966 urged that the succession certificate contemplated under this Act is the same certificate as a succession certificate under the Act of 1889. This rule provides that "any person competent to bring an action under rule 2 may apply to the District Judge having jurisdiction to issue a succession certificate following the death of the passenger for the grant of a certificate to the effect that only the persons named therein are the members of the passenger's family for whose benefit the liability is enforceable under rule 1." The argument was that though this Act or the rules in the 2nd Schedule do not expressly provide for the payment of court‑fee the intention was that court‑fee leviable under the Act of 1889 would having regard to the nature of the two Acts, be also recoverable in respect of the certificate granted under Act IX of 1966. I am afraid I cannot accept this conten tion. Article 12 of the First Schedule to the Court Fees Act provides for payment of court‑fee only to a certificate under the Succession Certificate Act, 1889. I am not able to see how x can say that a certificate granted under Act IX of 1966 is certificate under the Succession Certificate Act of 1889. It is true, that the term used in the Second Schedule is succession certificate but I cannot add to what is contained in the Schedule by saying that this certificate is the same as the one provided by the Act of 1889. It may be noticed that under the certificate granted under the Act of 1889, the guarantee gets the right to recover the debts of the deceased, that is the debts which were owing to him at the time of his death. In the present case the amount is made payable under this Act which becomes payable because of the death of the person who may have been a passenger on a plane which met with an accident. This, in fact is in the nature of compensation or damages payable to certain heirs of the deceased constituting his family and the Act provides that a certificate should be given in terms of rule 6, to which reference has already been made. I am, therefore, of the opinion that In view of the law, as it stands, court‑fee cannot be charged upon the certificate granted under Act IX of 1966.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree