1987 PLP 1112 (CLC)
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1112 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J |
| Parties | |
| Primary Law | Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1112 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1112 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1112 (CLC) (). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. H. Rizvi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 4ta September, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 278‑‑Grant of letters of administration‑‑Application for‑ Maintainability of‑‑Property of deceased having already been administered in terms of compromise decree passed in earlier suit instituted by one of the heirs of deceased in which petitioner was also duly represented‑ Fresh application of petitioner for grant of letters of administration, held, was not maintainable.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑S. 278‑‑Grant of letters of administration‑‑Application for‑ Maintainability of‑‑Property of deceased having already been administered in terms of compromise decree passed in earlier suit instituted by one of the heirs of deceased in which petitioner was also duly represented‑ Fresh application of petitioner for grant of letters of administration, held, was not maintainable. S. H. Rizvi for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 4ta September, 1986. The petitioner who is the daughter of the deceased Syed Noorul Arfin has applied for grant of letters of administration. By the present application under section 151, C.P.C., she has prayed that the heir No. 2 mentioned in the application be directed to file original documents in respect of the estates and assets of the deceased mentioned in schedule' 'B' to the application. The application is opposed and it is contended that the present proceedings for grant of letters of administration is misconceived as in respect of the same property one of the heirs of the deceased had instituted in this Court a suit for administration and accounts being suit No. 521 of 1970 in which the present petitioner was a party and that suit was disposed of in terms of a compromise arrived at between all the heirs of the deceased. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the filing of an earlier suit for administration by the heirs of the deceased and passing of a compromise decree therein. It is, however, stated by the learned counsel that as the present petitioner was a minor at the time of disposal of earlier suit she is entitled to apply for grant of letters of administration. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is aggrieved of or has not accepted the compromise in suit No. 521 of 1970. The property having been administered in terms of compromise decree passed in suit 521/70 instituted by one of the heirs of the deceased, in which the present petitioner was duly represented there is no further scope left for filing of any application for grant of letters of administration by any one of the heirs of the deceased. The present application as well as the main petition are accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./Z‑2/K Application dismissed