1989 PLP 4425 (MLD)
Mst. SHAHAR BANO — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM BAIG and 22 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4425 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, CJ. and Abdul Rahim Kazi, J. |
| Parties | Mst. SHAHAR BANO — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM BAIG and 22 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4425 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4425 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, CJ. and Abdul Rahim Kazi, J..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4425 (MLD) (Mst. SHAHAR BANO — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM BAIG and 22 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shaikh Abdul Sattar for Appellant.
- S.M.W. Hazratji for Respondents Nos. 1 to 12.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.218 & 264--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXL, R.1--High Court Appeal--Appellant obtained letters of administration in respect of estate of her deceased husband--High Court on application by father of deceased to the effect that appellant committed breach of terms of grant of letters of administration, appointed Receiver but at the same time did not revoke letters of administration--High Court in fact did not consider question whether it was a fit case for revoking letters of administration or not on grounds which were urged in application--Held, no Receiver could have been appointed in presence of letters of administration--Order of High Court was set aside and case remanded for decision of application afresh.
Judgment & Decree
Shaikh Abdul Sattar for Appellant. S.M.W. Hazratji for Respondents Nos. 1 to
12. AJMAL MIAN, CJ.--This appeal is fixed for hearing of the stay application. By this order we intend to dispose of the main appeal. It seems that the appellant had obtained a letters of administration in respect of the estate of her deceased husband Abdur Rashid. Cane of the sons of Asghar Baig, who was the father of deceased Abdur Rashid filed an application in the above administration case (CMA No.1 of 1982) alleging therein that the appellant had committed the breach of the terms of the grant of letters of administration inasmuch as she had inter alia surrendered a valuable property to the Evacuee Trust Board, whereas Mr. Hazratji states that this was not correct as it was sold out to the Mutawalli of the adjacent mosque. Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge by the order under appeal appointed a receiver but at the same time did not revoke the letters of administration. Mr. Shaikh Abdul Sattar learned counsel for the appellant has urged that so long as the appellant remained as the Administrator of the property under the letters of administration, which was not revoked, the receiver could not have been appointed. On the other hand Mr. S.M.W. Hazratji invites our attention to ground No.4 in the appeal in which he has made following averment:- "That the appellant is a Parda-Nashin lady and her male children being minors, she could not look after the business and the premises were lying vacant and neglected and were being misused by the public at large." According to Mr. Hazratji the appellant himself admits that she is incapable of administering the property of the deceased. In our view, the learned Single Judge should have considered the question, whether it was a fit case for revoking letters of administration or not on the grounds which were urged in the application which included the above ground and the question of maintainability of the application, but the receiver could not have been appointed in presence of letters of administration. We would, therefore, set aside the order under appeal and remand the case to the learned' Single Judge who will decide the above application afresh. There will be no order as to costs. M.Y.H. /S-434/K Case remanded