2000 PLP 239 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑Succession and administration‑‑‑Liabilities of a deceased person‑‑‑Legal representatives/heirs held personally liable for such liabilities of the deceased‑‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Such persons could never be personally held to be liable for the liabilities of a deceased person except to the extent of the estate of the deceased inherited by such legal representatives/heirs. Agriculture Development Bank of Pakistan v. Sanaul Haq Khan PLD 1988 SC 67 ref. Safdar Imam Bukhari for Petitioner. Mian Abdul Aziz Naseem for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 8th December, 1999. The petitioner feels aggrieved of an order, dated 24‑5‑1999 (Annexure D to the writ petition) passed by the respondents whereby he has been reverted from the post of Extra‑Assistant Director to that of Senior Assistant w.e.f. 1‑1‑1996. The reason given for the said reversion is that the promotion was subject to the condition that the petitioner would clear the amount of default of agricultural loan obtained by his late father by

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner not being a person from whom any amount is due to the respondent Bank, cannot be imposed the penalty of reversion, when he has not violated any Service Regulations or Rules governing the same. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, asserts that the promotion was conditional upon the clearance of loan obtained by late father of the petitioner.

3. It has not been denied that the loan was obtained by Dilawar Khan, the father of the petitioner who died in the year 1994 and was survived by two daughters and two sons including the petitioner. It has also not been dented that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,

000. It is also not denied that the petitioner was not a guarantor for the repayment of the loan. It has also not been denied that the petitioner is not guilty of such a conduct so as to be visited with any penalty under the Service Regulations. It has also not been denied that the loan was secured by the deceased loanee by property. In this state of affairs, I find that by no stretch of imagination can it be held that the person of the petitioner and traits personal to him can be held to be liable for the repayment of the alleged loan. The petitioner does not question the authority of the respondent Bank to recover the loan from the property of the deceased loanee which stands inherited by the petitioner and his co‑heirs. Even if the repayment of the loan of the deceased loanee was a condition of promotion, I find the same to be illegal and ultra vires being to violation of the settled Rule of law that legal representative/heir can never be personally held to be liable for the liabilities of the deceased person other than to the extent of the estate of the deceased in fact, inherited by the said legal representative/heir. Reference may be made to the case of "Agricultural Development of Pakistan v. Sanaul Haq Khan" (PLD 1988 SC 67).

4. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order, dated 24‑5‑1999 (Annexure D) is hereby declared to be without lawful authority and void as such. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./J‑77/L Petition allowed.