Find a Lawyer

SAIFULLAH KHAN versus MST. AFSHAN

XXO XX, R 13 - Case of Administration - Procedure - Initial Decree - Scope - The Court determines the title of any property in addition to determining the existence or justification of separation from any property. To achieve this goal. Only after the death of the other person dies - but also during his or her own life - the court can oversee the entire process of determining the property and the collection, payment, settlement and distribution of their assets. Court - Disputes can be resolved on the basis of comprehensive evidence by the parties immediately Was done Trial court not ordered to manage property killed and render property accounts The verdict and orders were set aside - the trial was remanded to the trial court for a new decision under the preliminary injunction that must be approved. Respect only those properties in the name of the deceased and if the property was not in the name of the deceased, the Commissioner / Administrator should be appointed to record the evidence of the parties - accordingly the appeal was disposed of. , 329, 331] A, B, C, D, E and F

P L D 2017 Sindh 324 

Before Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J. and Syed Saeeduddin Nasir, J

SAIFULLAH KHAN and others—Appellants

versus

Mst. AFSHAN and others—Respondents

H.C.As. Nos. 254 and 258 of 2014, decided on 3rd May, 2016.

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)—

—O. XX, R. 13—Administration suit—Procedure—Preliminary decree—Scope—Court could for the purpose of achieving the object of such a suit besides determining the question of title to any property determine the existence or validity of any alienation of property not only by other persons after the death of deceased but also by deceased himself during his life time—Court could take over charge for determining property and entire process of realization, payment, settlement and distribution of assets of deceased had to be made under the supervision of court—Factual controversy could only be resolved upon leading comprehensive evidence by the parties to the suit—No preliminary decree was passed in the suit for appointment of an administrator to administer the properties of the deceased under the supervision of court—No administrator was appointed by the Trial Court to administer the properties left by the deceased and accounts of the properties were not ordered to be rendered by the Trial Court— Mandatory requirements had not been fulfilled by the Trial Court which had vitiated entire proceedings—Impugned judgments and decrees were set aside—Case was remanded to the Trial Court for adjudication afresh in terms of preliminary decree which should be passed in respect of only those properties which were in the name of deceased and in case properties were not in the name of deceased then commissioner/administrator be appointed to record evidence of the parties—Appeal was disposed of accordingly. [pp. 328, 329, 331] A, B, C, D, E & F

Mohammad Bibi and others v. Abdul Ghani and others PLD 1975 Kar. 979; Mst. Sherbanoo v. Sadruddin and another 1984 MLD 803 and Muhammad Zahid v. Mst. Ghazala Zakir and others PLD 2011 Kar. 83 rel.

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)—

—O. XX, R. 13—Administration suit—Object—Purpose of a suit for administration was to have the estate of the deceased administrated by the court. [p. 328] A

Haji Zafarul Haque for Appellants (in H.C.A. No.254 of 2014). Mrs. Lali Tabassum for Respondents (in H.C.A. No.254 of

Mrs.Lali Tabassum for Appellants (in H.C.A. No.258 of 2014). Haji Zafarul Haque for Respondents (in H.C.A. No.258 of

Date of hearing: 8th February, 2016.

immigration advocates contact from Trinda Mohd Pannah lawyer