Find a Lawyer

MST. RASHIDA BANO versus MST. SAMINA YOUSAF

The purchase of the certificate on the common names of the Section 372 Succession Certificate, collective deposit certificate grant mother (defendant) and the deceased son applicant claimed that the certificate was exclusively owned by the deceased and the respondent was an anonymous respondent. The owner claimed to be the special owner of the certificate because at the time of his purchase, the deceased was a 20-year-old student with no independent source of income. That he purchased the certificate from his income from abroad. And that he had the locker key, which had the certificate lock through dead evidence, nothing was available to show to what extent and in what proportion both of them had participated. Have failed to establish their own independent and exclusive source of such purchases. Anonymous did not prove by any party that upon receipt of the certificate, the acquirer of the assets would not have any prejudicial alliance to prove his special purchase and that the respondent was an undisclosed sum. Which is the family amount used to purchase such certificate. The mother and son were given an equal share, the certificates were, were, the property of the respondents and the deceased, therefore, the defendant was entitled to share the same amount with interest, because the mother was also in 1/2 I will be entitled to 1/6 part. His son's part, while the rest will be with the applicant pakistani advocates Choa Saiden Shah lawyer