Find a Lawyer

MST. JAMEELA MANZOOR versus RAJA ZAFAR MEHMOOD

13R - R - Welfare Savings Certificate, Rules, 2003, R17 - Special Savings Certificate Rules 1990, R 16 ment Investment Certificate Ralual Gift of Proof - His widow, one brother and four sisters died DEPRECATED - The widow claimed that the deceased husband had gifted the entire amount of his investment / savings certificate in his lifetime, as he was specially entitled to receive - the validation - The deceased did not give any written instructions to the bank staff but other than his wife, the legal heir had no reference to the money left in his bank account. During the cross examination, the widow lacked information about the fact that the property remained in her name until her husband's death, the widow confessed that in relation to her assets her late husband's No action was written on behalf of him - no other witness has appeared to support the facts of the gift of the estate in favor of the widow - no date, time or place of such oral gift or name of witnesses The gift was given in the presence of the widow did not take the position that at the time of the gift the investment certificates etc. were delivered to her. Essential components of the missing were missing in the current case - plus a request for one of the regular income certificates shows that the deceased has mentioned the name of his widow and his sister to each of them. Part 1/2 was cited and such a claim warrants. For the widow who intends this late, all this money can be specially distributed by her. - If the deceased intended that

P L D 2017 Lahore 360

Before Atir Mahmood and Mujahid Mustaqeem Ahmed, JJ

Mst. JAMEELA MANZOOR and another—Appellants

versus

RAJA ZAFAR MEHMOOD and others—Respondents

R F.As. Nos. 152 and 159 of 2010, heard on 22nd December, 2016.

(a) Defence Saving Certificates Rules, 1966—

—R. 13—Behbood Savings Certificates, Rules, 2003, R. 17—Special Savings Certificates Rules 1990, R. 16—Investment certificates—Oral gift—Proof—Deceased died issueless leaving behind his widow, one brother and four sisters—Widow claimed that her deceased husband in his life time had gifted the entire amount of his investments/saving certificates in her favour, as such she was exclusively entitled to receive these amounts—Validity—Deceased had not conveyed any written instructions to the bank staff to the effect that except for his wife, no other legal heir would have any right in respect of amounts lying in his bank accounts—During cross-examination the widow showed her lack of knowledge about the fact that till death of her husband, the assets remained in his name—Widow conceded that no deed was written in her favour by her deceased husband in respect of his assets—No other witness has come forward to support factum of gift of assets in favour of widow—No date, time or place of such oral gift or name of the witnesses in whose presence the gift was made was given—Widow had not taken the stance that investment certificates, etc. were delivered to her, at the time of gift—Necessary ingredients of a valid gift were missing in the present case—Moreover application for one of the Regular Income Certificates showed that the deceased had mentioned on it name of her widow and one his sisters as nominees to the extent of 1/2 share each and such fact alone belied the claim of widow that deceased intended that all these amounts be exclusively shared by her— Had the deceased intended to gift away all his investments to his widow, it was quite easy for him to transfer such amounts in her account or execute a gift deed or will deed in her favour—Deceased being an advocate, fully knew the difference between nomination and gift and deliberately mentioned name of his wife in investment certificates as nominee alone—Widow had failed to establish that she was entitled to receive her deceased husband's assets/investments to the exclusion of other legal heirs—High Court observed that R.17 of Behbood Savings Certificates Rules, 2003 and R.13 of Defence Saving Certificates Rules,1966 pertaining to nomination by purchaser of these certificates being a subordinate delegated legislation could not be given preference /overriding effect in the matter of inheritance of movable assets idebts of a deceased person and Islamic law would be applicable and have precedence over said Rules—Appeal was disposed of accordingly, [pp.365, 366, 367, 369] A, B, C & D

Malik Safdar Ali Khan and another v. Public at Large and others 2004 SCMR 1219; Imtiaz Shamim and others v. Muhammad Irfan ul Haq and others 2006 CLC 1189; Mst. Ameeran Khatoon v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others 2005 SCMR 512; Mst. Rukhsana v. Province of Sindh through Home Secretary and 4 others 2013 CLC 370; Mst. Hussan Jamala and another v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secrtary, Home and Tribal Affairs, Peshawar PLD 2013 Pesh. 1 •and Muhammad Akram Bhatti and others v. Mst. Ghulam Sughra and others PLD 2011 Lah. 355 ref

(b) Islamic law—

—'Tarka'—Scope—Pensioner's Benefit Account — Such account was an investment by pensioners, under the National Saving Schemes, with the aim and object of reducing hardships faced by pensioners—Amount deposited in such account could be withdrawn by the pensioner at any time during his life, thus, it squarely fell within the definition of 'tarka'—All legal heirs of a pensioner would be entitled to inherit the amount in the Pensioner's Benefit Account. [p. 369] E F

Federal Government of Pakistan v. Public at Large (Shariat Appellate Bench) PLD 1991 SC 731 and Mst. Ameeran Khatoon v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others 2005 SCMR 512 ref

Muhammad Asif Chaudhry for Appellant.

Saeed Akhtar for Respondents Nos. 1, 2-C, 3 to 5.

Mubashar Rauf Bhatti for Respondents Nos. 2-A and 2(b). ,

Date of hearing: 22nd December, 2016.

criminal advocate from Swat lawyer