Succession Certificate

Succession Certificate was refused to her by the Courts below on the plea that she did not include claim of family monthly pensionin earlier succession application

Validity

Judge is empowered to issue more than one certificates, as provided by sections 372 (3) and 373 (3) and (4) of Succession Act, 1925

No limitation under Succession Act, 1925, has been placed upon right of parties in filing more than one application

Any decision made under Part-X upon any question of right between parties, does not bar trial of the same or related question in any subsequent proceedings under Succession Act, 1925 or in any suit or other proceedings between same parties

No person has been restricted under Succession Act, 1925 from filing application in respect of a portion of claim which he omitted while filing earlier application

Provisions of C.P.C. cannot be applied to matters falling under Succession Act, 1925 which is a special law and a specific procedure has been provided

Provisions of Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C. are not attracted in the matters under Succession Act, 1925

Where Succession Act, 1925 is silent on matters relating to procedure for trial of case, procedure provided by C.P.C. may be adopted to regulate proceedings

Earlier certificate issued to petitioner was in respect of amount left by her late father in his bank account, whereas, through second application, she was claiming her share in monthly family pension

Supreme Court set aside decision of High Court which was based upon unamended Balochistan Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1989, and was an illegality

Supreme Court remanded the matter to Trial Court to determine status, entitlement and share of petitioner in family monthly pension

Appeal was allowed.

Succession Certificate was refused to her by the Courts below on the plea that she did not include claim of family monthly pensionin earlier succession application

Validity

Judge is empowered to issue more than one certificates, as provided by sections 372 (3) and 373 (3) and (4) of Succession Act, 1925

No limitation under Succession Act, 1925, has been placed upon right of parties in filing more than one application

Any decision made under Part-X upon any question of right between parties, does not bar trial of the same or related question in any subsequent proceedings under Succession Act, 1925 or in any suit or other proceedings between same parties

No person has been restricted under Succession Act, 1925 from filing application in respect of a portion of claim which he omitted while filing earlier application

Provisions of C.P.C. cannot be applied to matters falling under Succession Act, 1925 which is a special law and a specific procedure has been provided

Provisions of Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C. are not attracted in the matters under Succession Act, 1925

Where Succession Act, 1925 is silent on matters relating to procedure for trial of case, procedure provided by C.P.C. may be adopted to regulate proceedings

Earlier certificate issued to petitioner was in respect of amount left by her late father in his bank account, whereas, through second application, she was claiming her share in monthly family pension

Supreme Court set aside decision of High Court which was based upon unamended Balochistan Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1989, and was an illegality

Supreme Court remanded the matter to Trial Court to determine status, entitlement and share of petitioner in family monthly pension

Appeal was allowed.

After death of her sister, (retired lecturer) petitioner applied for issuance of succession certificate qua pensionary benefits of her deceased sister, however same was refused by the Trial Court

Validity

Dependents, who apply for financial provision, are the deceased wife, husband and children or a child of a family in relation to any marriage or any other person who immediately before the death of the deceased is mentioned, whereas, in the case at hand, appellant was admittedly a government employee and was receiving a pension following her retirement, which implied that she was not reliant on the deceased, as she was earning her income as a government employee

Term "dependent" is defined as an individual with no personal earnings and entirely reliant on his/her sister's income

Simply being an unmarried sister did not automatically qualify the appellant as a dependent of her deceased sister

Dependency is not determined by marital status but by financial reliance

Despite the familial relationship, appellant's financial independence negated her status as a dependent

Succession Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

After death of her sister, (retired lecturer) petitioner applied for issuance of succession certificate qua pensionary benefits of her deceased sister, however same was refused by the Trial Court

Validity

Dependents, who apply for financial provision, are the deceased wife, husband and children or a child of a family in relation to any marriage or any other person who immediately before the death of the deceased is mentioned, whereas, in the case at hand, appellant was admittedly a government employee and was receiving a pension following her retirement, which implied that she was not reliant on the deceased, as she was earning her income as a government employee

Term "dependent" is defined as an individual with no personal earnings and entirely reliant on his/her sister's income

Simply being an unmarried sister did not automatically qualify the appellant as a dependent of her deceased sister

Dependency is not determined by marital status but by financial reliance

Despite the familial relationship, appellant's financial independence negated her status as a dependent

Succession Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Petitioner /widow was aggrieved of concurrent judgments by which legal heirs, besides her, were also held entitled to inherit an amount left in joint account opened by she and her husband (deceased)

Validity

Bank Account opening application / form which bears characteristic of "either or survivor", neither gives any authority to the Bank to disburse the available amount to the survivor of the joint account holder nor makes the survivor sole owner of the amount available in joint account

Said arrangement also does not get support from Muhammadan Law, especially when the Courts below after appreciating the evidence brought on record have concurrently observed that it was not established that petitioner (wife /widow of the deceased ) had any own source of income rather she was dependent upon her husband and the joint account was opened in the air of confidence for sake of domestic liabilities

Moreover, it was not stipulated in the application form that the survivor was unconditionally entitled to withdraw any amount from the said account after the death of co-account holder without adopting the due process of law

Admittedly, the amount available in the joint account was not gifted to petitioner /widow, thus, she retained no title over the same

Even otherwise, under the law with the death of one of the account holders of a joint account any authorization/authority given by the deceased co-account holder stands automatically revoked and even a validly authorized person is denuded of such power after death of the principal as all assets of the deceased by operation of law stand vested in the ownership of legal heirs of the deceased and the Bank or the joint account holder are not empowered to unilaterally operate the account or withdraw any amount until and unless as per law a declaration regarding succession or letter of administration or probate is issued by the Court of competent jurisdiction

Even in nomination cases, nominee is not entitled to receive the entire amount of deceased

Such nomination would neither be a will nor a gift nor a trust

It would merely be a mandate, the validity of which would expire with death and the amount available in the account would be undisposed estate of the deceased

Such nomination cannot override the provisions of Islamic Law of Inheritance, therefore, no legal heir could be deprived from receiving their respective share

Both the Courts below had rightly appreciated the legal perspective of the matter and impugned decisions were supported by valid lawful reasons

Petitioners had failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of Courts below, hence no interference was warranted in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition, being meritless, was dismissed.

After death of civil servant, petitioner applied for issuance of succession certificate about pensionary benefits of her deceased husband, who was an employee in the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited

Petitioner contended that deceased had already divorced his second wife/respondent No. 1, therefore she was not entitled to any pensionary benefits

Such claim was resisted by the respondents

Trial Court held the two wives and children entitled for pensionary benefits

Petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal

Appellate Court modified the order and entitled both wives only for pensioner benefits

Matter was decided on Special Oath

Held that nothing was on record to divulge that the petitioner was prompted by the respondents or by the Trial Court to arrange the disposal of lis on the basis of special oath, rather it was her sweet will to get decided the matter in terms of Special Oath

Therefore, said offer being made voluntarily and accepted by the respondent No. 1 was binding upon the petitioner

Offer so made by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1 was binding upon her and she could not resile from the same, and she had to face the consequence of the same

Revision petition in hand came to naught and the same stood dismissed, in circumstances.

After death of civil servant, petitioner applied for issuance of succession certificate about pensionary benefits of her deceased husband, who was an employee in the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited

Petitioner contended that deceased had already divorced his second wife/respondent No. 1, therefore she was not entitled to any pensionary benefits

Such claim was resisted by the respondents

Trial Court held the two wives and children entitled for pensionary benefits

Petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal

Appellate Court modified the order and held both wives only entitled for pensionary benefits

Validity

Petitioner took a stance that deceased divorced the respondent No.1 through Talaq-e-Bian on 13.12.2002 but as per observations of the Appellate Court, there were two divorce deeds of different dates on record of the concerned Union Council: one was issued on 13.12.2002 and other one issued on 03.09.2004 by the deceased in presence of two witnesses but the petitioner could not produce both the said witnesses in support of her contention especially after a categorical denial and special oath by the respondent No. I in pursuance to the offer of the present petitioner

Other aspect of keeping the purported proceedings of issuance of certificate of Talaq for a considerable period of seven years also spoke volumes of the authenticity and veracity of the same, as the first notice of Talaq was issued on 28.05.2011 and divorce effectiveness certificate was issued on 05.10.2011

Moreover, it was also not clear that on which divorce deed the same was issued, because the Appellate Court found two divorce deeds of different dates in the record of Union Council

In such view of the matter, the Appellate Court had rightly adjudged the matter in hand and had not committed any illegality or irregularity while upholding the order passed by the Trial Court, warranting interference by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction

Revision petition in hand came to naught and the same stood dismissed, in circumstances.

After death of civil servant, petitioner applied for issuance of succession certificate about pensionary benefits of her deceased husband, who was an employee in the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited

Petitioner contended that deceased had already divorced his second wife/respondent No.1, therefore she was not entitled to any pensionary benefits

Such claim was resisted by the respondents

Trial Court held the two wives and children entitled for pensionary benefits

Petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal

Appellate Court modified the order and held both wives only entitled for pensionary benefits

Validity

Petitioner took a stance that deceased divorced the respondent No.1 through Talaq-e-Bian on 13.12.2002 but as per observations of the Appellate Court, there were two divorce deeds of different dates on record of the concerned Union Council: one was issued on 13.12.2002 and other one issued on 03.09.2004 by the deceased in presence of two witnesses but the petitioner could not produce both the said witnesses in support of her contention especially after a categorical denial and special oath by the respondent No.1 in pursuance to the offer of the present petitioner

Other aspect of keeping the purported proceedings of issuance of certificate of Talaq for a considerable period of seven years also spoke volumes of the authenticity and veracity of the same, as the first notice of Talaq was issued on 28.05.2011 and divorce effectiveness certificate was issued on 05.10.2011

Moreover, it was also not clear that on which divorce deed the same was issued, because the Appellate Court found two divorce deeds of different dates in the record of Union Council

In such view of the matter, the Appellate Court had rightly adjudged the matter in hand and had not committed any illegality or irregularity while upholding the order passed by the Trial Court, warranting interference by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction

Revision petition in hand came to naught and the same stood dismissed, in circumstances.

After death of civil servant, petitioner applied for issuance of succession certificate about pensionary benefits of her deceased husband, who was an employee in the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited

Petitioner contended that deceased had already divorced his second wife/respondent No. 1, therefore she was not entitled to any pensionary benefits

Such claim was resisted by the respondents

Trial Court held the two wives and children entitled for pensionary benefits

Petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal

Appellate Court modified the order and entitled both wives only for pensionary benefits

Matter was decided on Special Oath

Held, that nothing was on record to divulge that the petitioner was prompted by the respondents or by the Trial Court to arrange the disposal of lis on the basis of special oath, rather it was her sweet will to get decided the matter in terms of Special Oath

Therefore, said offer being made voluntarily and accepted by the respondent No. 1 was binding upon the petitioner

Offer so made by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1 was binding upon her and she could not resile from the same, and she had to face the consequence of the same

Revision petition in hand came to naught and the same stood dismissed, in circumstances.

Deceased/government servant (issueless) was martyred during service and Government declared him Shahaeed and announced compensation amount for his legal heirs

Petitioner (brother/legal heir of the deceased/servant) filed suit against respondents (mother and two brothers of the deceased) that they had obtained succession certificate without impleading the petitioner as legal heir in the succession application and received the compensation amount accordingly

Suit was decreed by Civil Court, but the same was set aside by the appellate/District Court

Validity

Amount of compensation did not fall within the parameters of a Tarka, thus, no one could claim the same as matter of legitimate right

Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

Scribe of alleged Talaq-Nama stated that deceased was identified by his son who happened to be a Patwari and as such a direct beneficiary of alleged Talaq-Nama remained on front foot without associating any independent person with the process of execution of alleged Talaq-Nama

Identity of deceased was not established before scribe of the deed through independent, trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgments passed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court and petitioner was held entitled to her Shari share in the legacy of her deceased husband

High Court directed the Trial Court to revoke earlier succession certificate and issue a second succession certificate duly reflecting share of petitioner along with all other legal heirs of deceased

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Respondents applied for issuance of succession certificate regarding debts and securities (amount of insurance policy) left by deceased claiming that the deceased was their paternal uncle; that the deceased died issueless leaving behind his widow (petitioner); and that respondents were sons of one brother of the deceased ("A") entitled for succession as residuaries

Four petitioners being the widow and daughters of the other brother of the deceased ("M") maintained in their written statement that they were legal hears of the deceased as their father "M" died after the death of the deceased; that petitioners fell under the definition of "distant kindred" of the deceased, so the respondents were not entitled for succession as they were remote in relation

Trial Court accepted the application and granted the petitioners and said four respondents' shares from the insurance policy being legal heirs of the deceased under the definition of residuary

Petitioners' impugned the Trial Court's order but District Court dismissed their appeal

Validity

Deceased left one wife only

"M" being real brother of the deceased died after one month of deceased' death, leaving behind three daughters and a wife

"A" being another real brother of the deceased died 18 years after the death of the deceased

Wife of the deceased will get 1/4th as sharer and rest of the legal heirs of "M" and "A" will get the share from the remaining inheritance of the deceased

Petitioners failed to point any illegality in the judgments of both the Courts below

Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

Intricate questions of fact could not be resolved in such summary proceedings, and questions as to title of property had to be decided before a civil court.

After death of civil servant during his service, his legal heirs applied for succession certificate which included Bank accounts, general provident fund, leave salary, leave encashment, gratuity and group insurance

Validity

Test to determine any service benefit heritable by and for considering it 'Tarka' for all his legal heirs, was invariably availability thereof to the concerned employee during his service or on/after retirement

All other benefits allowed by employer out of his discretion, even to be paid during his lifetime or on the eve of his retirement or on his death were regarded as a grant or concession, to the exclusion of 'Tarka'

Benefits accrued on end of service or after death of person like gratuity, group insurance, benevolent fund and general provident fund, were grant/concession/compensation and could not be regarded as hereditary in nature nor could be interpreted to mean 'Tarka'

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside order passed by Lower Appellate Court as petitioner/widow was entitled to receive gratuity, general provident fund, group insurance and benevolent fund

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Plaintiffs assailed declaration of gifts of immovable properties made by their parents in favour of their deceased brother in his life time

After death of brother of plaintiffs succession certificate was issued in favour of parents regarding suit properties

Validity

Gift was a registered document which was not challenged by plaintiffs on the ground of any fraud or misrepresentation by beneficiary in acquiring the gift

Nor the donor (father of plaintiffs) at relevant time was otherwise not legally competent to execute gift to his son owning to some legal disability

No amendment of pleadings could be allowed in disposed of matter

In disposed of succession petition only extension of Letter of Administration was permissible under S.376 of Succession Act, 1925, on subsequent discovery of any other estate of deceased which inadvertently or for any reason could not be mentioned in original succession petition

Succession certificate could also be revoked on the grounds provided in S.383 of Succession Act, 1925

No concept of amendment of disposed of memo of petition for Letter of Administration in respect of one identified deceased on subsequent death of another person who was legal heir of the deceased whose petition had been disposed of prior to the death of the other person

Under the law of succession, it was not permissible that a common petition / application was entertained for grant of succession certificate / Letter of Administration pertaining to assets of more than one deceased particularly when legal heir of two deceased were not common, irrespective of the fact that assets were inherited by one of them from the other person

Suit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Deceased had invested amount in NIT/CIP (National Investment Trust/Cumulative Investment Plan) Units and authorities did not pay complete amount on the plea that the same was not re-invested after death of account holder

Validity

Authorities instead of honouring their commitment as per terms and conditions applicable at the time of purchase of NIT/CIP Units and option availed by deceased regarding Cumulative Investment Plan (CIP), had attempted to create a dispute either with mala fide intention or to wriggle out from a default on their part, whereby they were under legal obligation to reinvest yearly dividend as per Cumulative Investment Plan (CIP) option till its realization

After death of NIT/CIP Unit holder, the terms and conditions applicable to such units could not be charged unilaterally by authorities to the disadvantage of a Unit holder

All assets of deceased automatically stood devolved in favour of his/her legal heirs as per Islamic Law of inheritance in similar terms as the case of deceased was before his/her death

Authorities unnecessarily dragged the matter and also failed to comply with the orders already passed by Single Judge of High Court by raising misconceived and erroneous plea

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by the Single Judge of High Court as the same did not suffer from any factual error or legal infirmity

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner impugned order of Civil Court whereby claim of entitlment of petitioner to her deceased father's pension was denied, on ground that she being above the age of twenty-one was not entitled to the same

Validity

In view of Government of Balochistan Notification No.FD(R-II)VII-2/98/1719-1819 dated 25.07.1998, irreseptive of age, unmarried female child of deceased was entitled to draw family pension of late father till her marriage

High Court observed that no where in Balochistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1989 it had been mentioned that after having attained age of twenty-one, unmarried daughter of deceased government servant would be disentitled from family pension

Impugned order was set aside

Revision was allowed, accordingly.

Petitioner impugned order of Civil Court whereby claim of entitlment of petitioner to her deceased father's pension was denied, on ground that she being above the age of twenty-one was not entitled to the same

Validity

In view of Government of Balochistan Notification No.FD(R-II)VII-2/98/1719-1819 dated 25.07.1998, irreseptive of age, unmarried female child of deceased was entitled to draw family pernsion of late father till her marriage

High Court observed that no where in Balochistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1989 it had been mentioned that after having attained age of twenty-one, unmarried daughter of deceased government servant would be disentitled from family pension

Impugned order was set aside

Revision was allowed, accordingly.

Execution petition was filed for implementation of succession certificate wherein objection application was moved but same was dismissed

Contention of petitioner was that succession certificate was not a decree and same was not executable

Validity

Succession certificate did not fall within the ambit of decree and it merely declared that legal heir of the deceased was entitled to recover the amount mentioned in the said certificate

Succession certificate was not capable of being executed as a decree or order of the Court

Impugned order passed by the Court below was set aside and execution petition was dismissed by allowing objection petition

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Proceedings before Trial Court in petition of grant of succession certificate under S.373 of Succession Act, 1925 are summary in nature

Intricate questions cannot be resolved in such proceedings

Questions of title to property have to be left to be decided in a suit before court of plenary jurisdiction

If court cannot decide right to certificate without determining question of law or fact which seemed to be too intricate and difficult for determination in summary proceedings, court may grant a certificate to applicant if he appears to be person having prima facie best title thereto.

Inheritance of a person opened the moment he died and all the legal heirs became owners to the extent of their respective shares there and then

Sanction of inheritance mutation, issuance of succession certificate etc. were procedural matters regulated by the procedural laws just to make the records in order and also for fiscal purposes.

Petitioners filed application before Trial Court to withdraw succession certificate as well as initiating criminal proceedings against respondents

Trial Court withdrew succession certificate but declined to initiate criminal proceedings

Validity

Procedure laid down under S.373 of Succession Act, 1925 was a summary procedure wherein evidence like a civil suit was not recorded

Court in case of grant of succession certificate, did not determine rights of parties

If any person wanted determination of rights then remedy lay for him in shape of suit under S.37 of Succession Act, 1925

If a person was aggrieved and dissatisfied by issuance of succession certificate he could prefer an appeal under S.383 of Succession Act, 1925

Trial Court only had the prerogative to lodge complaint against respondents in terms of provisions of S.195(1)(b), Cr.P.C. and same could not be pre-empted by anyone

Trial Court in view of summary proceedings which culminated into a succession certificate in favour of respondents had rightly declined to lodge a complaint against them in terms of provision of S.195(1)(b), Cr.P.C.

Lower Appellate Court rightly did not interfere in the complaint of petitioners

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Appellant filed application for seeking succession certificate with regard to Bank account and valuable items lying in locker of the deceased

Trial Court issued certificate to the extent of Bank account only

Validity

Status of disputed items could not be determined by Trial Court exercising jurisdiction under Succession Act, 1925

Appropriate remedy for parties was to approach Civil Court under its plenary jurisdiction to first determine status of disputed items being legacy of deceased or otherwise; after determination by Civil Court that disputed items constituted legacy of deceased, parties could resort to mechanism under Succession Act, 1925, for obtaining succession certificate in respect of disputed items or extension of existing succession certificate to the disputed items

Order accordingly.

Office sought approval of High Court to distribute shares among legal heirs excluding three applicants who were children of pre-deceased brother and sister of deceased

Validity

Provision of S.4 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, was specific to predeceased sons and daughters of a deceased and could not be stretched in any manner

Matter was to be strictly governed by law as it was a matter of inheritance amongst Muslims

Provisions were well defined and no ambiguity was left so as to adopt any analogy

Children of predeceased brother and sister fell under the category of distant kindred, who could only inherit a share when there were no sharers and residuaries

In the present case, there were brothers and sisters who survived the deceased as sharers and residuaries and therefore, there could not be any share of distant kindred

Legal heirs of predeceased brother and sister of deceased listed as applicants were not entitled for any share as inheritance

High Court directed to distribute shares amongst remaining legal heirs and approved the report of office

Application was allowed accordingly.

Legal heirs of deceased filed application to restrain account holder from the operation of Bank account in question which was neither in the name of deceased nor the account holders were amongst legal heirs of the deceased

Validity

Inclusion of names of holders of account in succession petition was against the mandate of S. 372(1) of Succession Act, 1925

Bank account which was not operated by deceased could not be part of debts and securities of deceased

Court, in succession matters, was not supposed to declare that Bank account of a third party was an account of deceased without recording of evidence

Only the legal heirs of deceased could be made party in succession matters and that too if they had no dispute even inter se

Interim injunction was refused in circumstance.

Widow of deceased was also not entitled for grant of succession certificate in her favour on grounds that funds in question were never considered as assets of deceased for which succession certificate could be granted

Grant of succession certificate in favour of widow would mean that assets were liable to be distributed among all legal heirs, which was incorrect

Widow was nominee and entitled for such funds, i.e., provident fund, gratuity, group insurance, welfare funds and benevolent fund without having any recourse of obtaining a succession certificate

Succession certificate was granted for its distribution to legal heirs for salary dues and leave encashment

High Court directed authorities to deposit amounts of salary and leave encashment with court officials who would distribute same amount among legal heirs as per their entitlement

Amount of concerned provident fund, gratuity, group insurance, welfare funds and benevolent fund would be released by authorities to widow of deceased as required under law after due verification and satisfaction as succession certificate for release of such amount was not required

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Award, pay and allowances given by government on the death of petitioner's husband were distributed among legal heirs in view of succession certificate issued by Court

Respondent was brother of deceased husband of petitioner and succession certificate was issued in his favour who submitted surety bond before the Court

Grievance of petitioner was that her brother in law had kept minor children with him and had also not distributed shares of petitioner and her minor children

Validity

Respondent was granted succession certificate being attorney of petitioner and other legal heirs and he was required to be dealt with under S.375 of Succession Act, 1925

High Court directed the Court which issued succession certificate to proceed with the matter and to get the amount of shares of minors recovered from respondent and the matter was remanded for the purpose

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Logic behind S.381 of Succession Act, 1925, is to enable a person to recover debts on estate of a deceased but the certificate issued for the purpose neither declares rights of persons interested, nor determine their shares in recoverable debt

Issuance of certificate is with sole purpose to protect party paying debt to holder of certificate

Duty is imposed on holder of certificate to disburse amount realized under certificate among persons entitled, in accordance with their respective rights

Certificate issued under Succession Act, 1925, does not confer any title upon a person but only enables him to recover the debts.

Appellants were mother, brother and sister of deceased who claimed their shares in the outstanding dues with government department

Trial Court issued succession certificate to widow of deceased for collection of dues of deceased from government department, where he was employed

Validity

Issuance of certificate did not place bar on the right of appellants (legal heirs) to establish their title and entitlement in debts by a suit before a Court of competent jurisdiction

Issuance of certificate also did not confer any title to holder of certificate, rather certificate was issued with the sole purpose to recover dues from concerned department

Person aggrieved could press his right through a suit and to recover amount received on the basis of such certificate to the extent of his share on the basis thereof

Trial Court, in the present case, without discussing nature of dues and fact that either it covered legacy of deceased and entitlement of parties before it, ordered to exclude claim of appellants (legal heirs) decided that widow was solely and lonely entitled to receive and encash dues of her late husband and appellants (legal heirs) did not deserve to receive any share out of the dues of deceased

High Court set aside such findings of Trial Court which erred while recording findings and the same could not hold the field

High Court modified the order passed by Trial Court

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Word "Shall" in S.375 of Succession Act, 1925 is used with reference to class of cases, which fell under Ss.373(3) & 373(4) of Succession Act, 1925, wherein, court decides to proceed in summary manner to determine right as to grant of succession certificate

In such cases S.375(1) of Succession Act, 1925 makes it incumbent on court to order issuance of certificate subject to furnishing of surety in addition to execution of bond

Where case for grant of succession certificate does not fall under S.373(3) or S.373(4) of Succession Act, 1925, it is discretionary with court to require the person in whose favour certificate is issued to give surety as condition for grant thereof.

Petitioner, being sole legal heir of her husband who was government servant, filed petition for obtaining succession certificate and other legal heirs did not object to issuance of succession certificate

Trial Court allowed said petition subject to production of two sureties equal to amount of the succession certificate

Petitioner filed application seeking dispensation with furnishing of said two sureties, which the court dismissed

Petitioner contended that her case was not covered under S.373(3) or S.373(4) of Succession Act, 1925, and Trial Court in terms of S.375 of the Act had discretion to dispense with furnishing of surety in appropriate cases

Validity

Trial Court passed impugned order of dismissal of application without giving any reason and mentioning contentions of petitioner's counsel

Impugned order, being "non-speaking" and resulting from non-application of judicial mind, was not a judicial order

Trial Court, declaring petitioner to be sole legal heir of the deceased and entitled to issuance of succession certificate, should not have insisted upon furnishing of sureties

Petitioner was entitled to grant of succession certificate without furnishing sureties

High Court accepting the petition ordered issuance of succession certificate in favour of petitioner subject to obtaining personal surety bond of any government official.

Succession certificate could be issued only for debts and securities which would never give any general power of administration on the estate of the deceased nor same would establish title of the grantee as the heir of the deceased

Succession certificate would only furnish the grantee with authority to collect debts due to the deceased and would allow the debtors to make payment to him with incurring loss

Object of succession certificate was to facilitate the collection of debts, to regulate the administration of succession and to protect person who was going to deal with the alleged representatives.

Legal heirs were entitled to inherit what deceased had left behind him whether movable or immovable including a right of claim which would be available for distribution among the legal heirs as per their legal entitlement

Only which the deceased was owning or possessing as owner and all other claims and rights which the deceased himself was entitled to make during his life time could be distributed among legal heirs

Assets left by the deceased could be distributed among legal heirs as per their entitlement

Tarka would be the absolute property of the deceased and same should be governed by law of inheritance of the deceased

"Concession" "grant" or "compensation" had to be dealt with as per wishes of the giver

Group insurance of the deceased employee did not fall within the definition of "Tarka" and same would not be available for its distribution among the legal heirs but would be dealt as per relevant rules and procedure framed by the employer (government) for such purpose

'Benevolent fund and group insurance' amount would not be part of "Tarka"

Court below had wrongly held the `group insurance amount' to be part of "Tarka"

Compensation to Shaheed officers/officials of Sindh Police was payable to the family of deceased employee

Rights and claims of the deceased which he had during his life time but did not include "Tarka" should include any other amount which was given/paid by the employer

'Compensation' if being paid for Qatl-i-Amd or Qatl-i-Khata of the deceased by the accused would be heritable by all the legal heirs but if an amount was being given by the employer it should not be equated to that of "Diyat/compensation"

No restriction could be put on the right of the choice "giver" to choose best person out of the legal heirs of the deceased as "fit person"

Impugned order passed by the court below was not based on proper appraisal of law

Benevolent fund, amount of financial compensation with regard to Shahadat of deceased and group insurance should be dealt with in accordance with service rules

Widow was not liable to distribute the amount of group insurance which she had already received from the department

Widow was also entitled to receive the compensation payable under the scheme provided to Shaheed officials

Order of court below with regard to other service benefits due was in accordance with law

Accountant District Court should continue with authority to withdraw such amount and to ensure proper distribution of said amount among all legal heirs

Amount of share of minor legal heirs should be invested in some government profitable scheme

Widow would also be entitled towards pay and allowances and avail of other benefits as specified by the government from time to time till she did not marry

Appeal was disposed of in circumstances.

General Provident Fund, leave salary, leave encashment and gratuity being in nature of tarka should go to the legal heirs of the deceased while group insurance, financial assistance and benevolent fund which did not fall within the ambit of tarka were just grant and grantee was empowered to distribute the same as per rules and regulations of service or any provision of law

Order of Trial Court was in accordance with law

Appellate Court remanded the case without any reason which would prolong the agony of the parties

Impugned order of Appellate Court was set aside and that of Trial Court was restored

Revision was accepted in circumstances.

During pendency of proceedings for issuance of succession certificates, three applications were filed one for consolidating both applications for issuance of succession certificates, second for providing details of business and third for impleading other business partners as party

All three applications were dismissed by Trial Court against which widow filed two revision applications before Lower Appellate Court out of which one was dismissed whereas the other was allowed

Validity

During pendency of first revision application, widow filed second revision application concealing the filing of earlier revision application, and such facts were not adverted to by Lower Appellate Court

Subsequent revision application was not maintainable in view of the earlier revision application filed by same party challenging the same judgment on same cause of action

Subsequent revision application against the same judgment attacking different findings of the same judgment which were not assailed in earlier revision application by widow was not maintainable

Lower Appellate Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction was not justified to accept subsequent revision application filed by the widow

High Court set aside the order passed by Lower Appellate Court and subsequent revision application was dismissed

Petition was allowed accordingly.

After issuance of Succession Certificate share of applicant, who was a minor at that time, was deposited by the Nazir in her name in a profit bearing scheme

Applicant sought correction of her name on the grounds that at time of issuance of Succession Certificate she was known by her childhood name, which was subsequently changed by her mother

Validity

Applicant produced her Family Registration Certificate, educational certificates and record of National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) to establish that her name had been changed

Mother of applicant had sworn an affidavit that she changed the childhood name of applicant to her current name

Applicant was also present in court along with her original Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC)

No one had come forward to object to the identity of the applicant who was shown with her childhood name at the time of grant of Succession Certificate

Amount deposited in the profit bearing scheme was not substantial

Application was allowed and Nazir was directed to pay the deposited amount to the applicant on execution of personal bonds equivalent to the amount in question.

Nominee is not entitled as owner of the amount subject-matter in the succession matters but is only a representative and legal, duty bound to receive the amount and distribute amongst legal heirs.

Applicant had filed application for succession certificate, which was dismissed on ground that civil court could only determine issues relating to status of legal heirs

Contention of the applicant was that even in case of dispute, Succession Certificate could still be granted under S.373, Succession Act, 1925

Validity

Section 373 of the Act related to extent of share of an applicant and was irrelevant in present case

Proceedings under the Succession Act, 1925 being summary in nature could not help in determining the issue of status of a party hence in the event of dispute regarding status of a party, the proper course would be for parties to approach the competent civil court for declaration of such disputed status and then resort to course provided under the Succession Act, 1925

Applicant, in the present case, had claimed that one of the interveners who appeared in the proceedings and claimed to be legal heir was not the actual wife of the deceased and that the deceased had divorced one of his wives, which issues could not be determined in succession proceedings

Impugnedorder whereby parties had been directed to resort to civil court regarding determination of disputed issues did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Application of the respondent-Bank for amendment in its written reply in relation to the Bank Account of the deceased was allowed by the Trial Court

Said order of Trial Court was assailed by the petitioners

Contention of the respondent Bank was that revision against said order was not maintainable

Validity

Proceedings under the Succession Act, 1925, even if carried out by Civil Court, were always deemed to be proceedings before the District Judge

Right of appeal was available under section 384(1) of the Succession Act, 1925 in cases of granting , refusing or revoking of a certificate; whereas by virtue of section 383(3) the High Court was provided the right to entertain revision from an order of District Judge in cases other than the ones mentioned in section 384(1), Succession Act, 1925

Revision was therefore, competent.

Petitioners sought succession certificate on the ground that they were nominated by their deceased predecessor-in-interest, while respondents claimed their share under Islamic Law

In view of specific nomination in favour of petitioners, Trial Court issued the certificate in their favour to the exclusion of respondents

Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and held the respondents also entitled to their legal shares in the amount of Defence Saving Certificates

Validity

Lower Appellate Court, before whom the matter was taken up by respondents after relying upon the judgments passed by Supreme Court, rightly declared that effect of nomination made by deceased predecessor-in-interest in favour of specific nominees was only for the purpose of receiving the amount under Defence Saving Certificates Scheme but distribution of the amount had to be made in accordance with the respective legal shares amongst all legal representatives of the deceased

Judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court was perfectly in accordance with law and the same called for no interference

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Legal heirs filed application for issuance of succession certificate on the ground that their predecessor-in-interest was kidnapped 12 years ago and his whereabouts were not known, therefore, he should be presumed to be dead

Succession certificate issued by Trial Court in favour of legal heirs was maintained by Lower Appellate Court

Insurance company assailed the certificate on the plea that insurer could not pay the claim unless it was established that the insured had died

Validity

After elapse of 12 years no one had claimed that he had seen the insured person and insurance company was not claiming that it had evidence about fact that the insured was alive

It was a proven fact that insured was dead, insurance policy was covered against death of insured and as such insurance company was bound to pay insurance claim to legal heirs of insured in terms of succession certificate issued by competent court of law

Insurance claim had matured from the date of expiry of seven years which commenced from the date of kidnapping

High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in succession certificate issued by the courts below and insurance company was bound to pay the insurance claim to legal heirs of insured

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Scope.

Legal heirs filed application for issuance of succession certificate on the ground that their predecessor-in-interest was kidnapped 12 years ago and his whereabouts were not known, therefore, he should be presumed to be dead

Succession certificate issued by Trial Court in favour of legal heirs was maintained by Lower Appellate Court

Insurance company assailed the certificate on the plea that insurer could not pay the claim unless it was established that the insured had died

Validity

After elapse of 12 years no one had claimed that he had seen the insured person and insurance company was not claiming that it had evidence about fact that the insured was alive

It was a proven fact that insured was dead, insurance policy was covered against death of insured and as such insurance company was bound to pay insurance claim to legal heirs of insured in terms of succession certificate issued by competent court of law

Insurance claim had matured from the date of expiry of seven years which commenced from the date of kidnapping

High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in succession certificate issued by the courts below and insurance company was bound to pay the insurance claim to legal heirs of insured

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Heir entitled to sue for share of deceased in partnership property without certificate unless prevented by rule of law or procedure-(Cyprus case).