P L D 1960 (W (PLP)
Malik RASHID AKBAR and another‑Appellants Versus Malik HAZUR BAKHSH and others‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1960 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Abdul Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | Malik RASHID AKBAR and another‑Appellants Versus Malik HAZUR BAKHSH and others‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1960 (W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1960 (W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Abdul Aziz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1960 (W (PLP) (Malik RASHID AKBAR and another‑Appellants Versus Malik HAZUR BAKHSH and others‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. Warasat Husain Naqvi for Appellants.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 26th October 1959.
Headnotes / Summary
Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)
S. 371‑ "Had no fixed place of residence "‑‑Means " had no fixed place of residence in Pakistan "‑Deceased residing outside Pakistan‑Application should be made to District Judge having jurisdiction in plac3 where property is situate. The words " had no fixed place of residence " in sec tion 371 of the Succession Act, 1925, mean " had no fixed place of residence in Pakistan ". If the deceased had no fixed place of residence but had some property in Pakistan, then the application should be made to the District Judge having jurisdiction in the place where the property was situate. Sri Goswami Gopal Lalji v. Sri Goswami Jaideo Lalji (1885) A W N 39 and Amar Singh v. Sham Singh A I R 1935 Lah. 646 ref.
Judgment & Decree
S. Warasat Husain Naqvi for Appellants. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 26th October 1959. The admitted facts of this case are that one Sultan Bakhsh died in Dar‑ul‑Islam British East Africa, leaving a sum of Rs. 7,244‑9‑6 in the National Bank of India, Lahore Branch. Sultan Bakhsh's grandchildren, Malik Rashid Akbar and others, applied for the grant of a succession certificate under the Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, 2nd Class, Multan. The learned Additional Civil Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and, therefore, dismissed it. The applicants have come up to this Court in appeal. 2. Section 371 of the Succession Act reads:‑-- " The District Judge within whose jurisdiction the deceased ordinarily resided at the time of his death, or, if at that time he had no fixed place of residence, the District Judge, within whose jurisdiction any part of the property of the deceased may be found, may grant a certificate under this Part." The language of the section indicates that a certificate can be granted by the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the deceas ed ordinarily resided, or if at the time of his death he had no fixed place of residence, then by the District Judge, within whose jurisdiction any part of the property of the deceased may be found. It is an admitted fact that the deceased had been living in Dar‑ul‑Islam since 1930 and that he died there. Can it be said : " He had no fixed place of residence ?" The words " had no fixed place of residence " mean " had no fixed place of residence in Pakistan ". All that the legislature meant was that if the deceased had no fixed place of residence but had some property in Pakistan, then the application should be made to the District Judge having jurisdiction in the place where the property was situated. See Sri Goswami Gopal Lalji v. Sri Goswami Jaideo Lalji ((1885) A W N 39) and Amar Singh v. Sham Singh (A I R 1935 Lah. 646). The learned Additional Civil Judge, Multan, rightly held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application in respect of the amount lying in Lahore. 3. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. K. B. A. Appeal dismissed.