2004 PLP 1244 (YLR)
SHIREEN BANO — Appellant Versus D.J. CENTRAL — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1244 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Anwar Zaheer Jamali, J |
| Parties | SHIREEN BANO — Appellant Versus D.J. CENTRAL — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1244 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1244 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Anwar Zaheer Jamali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1244 (YLR) (SHIREEN BANO — Appellant Versus D.J. CENTRAL — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mahmood Habibullah for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 17th October, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 370 & 384
Issuance of Succession Certificate regarding claim of group insurance of deceased
Amount of group insurance neither being `TARKA' of deceased nor covering by terms `debit' and `security', but merely being a grant in favour of nominee of deceased, Succession Certificate in respect thereof could not be issued. Wafaqi Hukumat Pakistan v. Awamunnas PLD 1991 SC 731; Mst. Shamim Akhter and others PLD 1994 Kar. 237; -Muhammad Mumtaz v. Mst. Umra Bevi 1999 CLC 806 and Messrs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Mst. Alia Siddiqa and 3 others 2001 MLD 1 ref. Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed for Legal Heirs of deceased.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal under section 384 of the Succession Act, 1925, is directed against the order dated 4-12-2002 passed by District Judge Karachi Central in S.M.A. No.112 of 2002 whereby prayer of the appellant for issuance of Succession Certificate regarding the claim of group insurance of deceased, Muhammad Mughal son of Ali Muhammad; was declined. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Mahmood Habibullah, learned counsel for the appellant, referred section 370 of Succession Act, 1925, and stressed that the amount of group insurance would be deemed as part of debit and security of the deceased, therefore, the petitioner was entitled for grant of Succession Certificate in that regard. On the other hand, Mr. Mirza Sarfaraz Ahmed contended that the amount of group insurance is neither TARKA of the deceased nor it is covered by the terms debt and security as discussed under section 370 of the Succession Act, 1925, but it is merely a grant in favour of the nominee of the deceased, therefore, Succession Certificate cannot be issued for this purpose. In support of his arguments learned counsel placed reliance on the following cases:-- (a) Wafaqi Hukumat Pakistan v. Awamunnas PLD 1991 SC 731 (b) In re: Mst. Shamim Akhter and others PLD 1994 Karachi 237 (c) Muhammad Mumtaz v Mst, Umra Bevi 1999 CLC 806 (d) Messrs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Mst. Alia Siddiqa and 3 others 2001 MLD 1 I have considered he arguments advanced by the learned counsel and perused, the case record. In the case cited at Serial No.(a) above, while examining the status of group insurance claim Shariat Appellate Bench of the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan unequivocally held that it Was not a 'TARKA' but a grant. In the other cases at Serial Nos.(b) to (d) consistently this view has been affirmed/followed and claim of group insurance has not been .accepted toward security. In view of the above, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, which is accordingly maintained and this appeal is dismissed in limine alongwith pending application. H.B.T./S-10/K Appeal dismissed,