Find a Lawyer

Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 154, 6, 63, 98, 150, 152, 158, 134 of 1986, 99,‑168, 209, 225, 231, 232, 304 and 313 of 1985 and 169, 250 of 1984, decided on 21st September, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 373(3) & (4)‑‑Letter of Administration and Succession Certificate issuance of‑‑When surety, a condition precedent‑‑Where Court grants Letter of Administration it has no power to dispense with surety, which is a condition precedent for issuance thereof‑‑Where case in respect of Succession Certificate, does not fall under S. 373(3) or (4), Court, held, would have discretion in dispensing with security while granting such certificate‑‑Where cases for grant of Succession Certificate fall under S. 373(3) & (4), Court could not grant Certificate of Succession without first obtaining security fr6m petitioner‑‑Letters of Administration or Certificate of Succession could not be issued in favour of Nazir of Court.

‑‑‑Ss. 241 & 291‑‑Letter of Administration, grant of‑‑Requirements‑ Every applicant in whose favour Letter of Administration other than under S. 241 has been granted would be required to give a bond to District Judge with one or more sureties for due collection and administration of estate of deceased‑‑No discretion given to the Court while granting Letter of Administration to dispense with execution of bond or providing surety or sureties‑‑Execution of bond with surety or sureties, however, is discretionary with Court while dealing with a case of grant of probate pursuant to a will.

Goods of Kumar Projendra Narayan Singh Deo A I R 1953 Cal. 606 distinguished.

‑‑). 291(1) & (2)‑‑Word "shall", connotation of‑‑Word "shall" in S. 291(1) , held, is used in imperative sense in contradiction to sub‑cl. (b) of subsection (2) of S.291 wherein it is discretionary with Court to demand a bond from person to whom a probate has been granted.‑‑ [Interpretation of statutes].

Ramchandra Ramratan v. Ramgapal Onkarji and others A I R 1957 Madhya Bharat 31 and Zubeida Khatoon v. Mohamed Zakaria A I R 1938 Rang. 67 distinguished.

‑‑‑S. 373‑‑Succession Certificate, grant of‑‑Procedure. Under subsection (2) of section 373 of Succession Act, 1925, where the Judge, dealing with an applicant for grant of Succession Certificate, reaches the conclusion that the right belongs to the applicant, he is bound to make an order for grant of Certificate to him. However, in cases, which are covered under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section 373, if the Judge. is of the view that the right claimed by the applicant cannot be decided without determining intricate and difficult questions of law and fact, or, where there are more applicants than one and it appears to the Judge that more than one of such applicants are interested in the estate of the deceased, the Judge may nevertheless grant the certificate in both such cases to such of the applicants who appear to be having a prima facie best title and fitness to the grant of such certificate. However, in respect of these two class of cases, which are covered under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section 373, the power of the Judge to grant the Succession Certificate is circumscribed to the condition that, before granting such Certificate, he must require the person in whose favour he grants the Certificate to give sufficient security as a condition precedent for rendering the account of debts and securities received by him and for indemnity of the person, who may be entitled to the whole or any part of those debts and securities.

‑‑‑Ss..373 & 375‑‑Expressions "shall" and "may" used in S. 375‑‑Meaning and Scope.‑‑[Words and phrases].

In subsection (1) of section 375 of the Succession Act, 1925 the Legislature with reference to different situations used two different expressions namely "shall" and "may" to express their intention. The word "shall" in section 375 is used with reference to those class of cases, which fall under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section 373, and in which, in spite of involvement of intricate and difficult questions of law and fact, the Court decides to proceed in a summary manner to determine the right to the grant of Succession Certificate to the applicant. In such cases, the provisions of subsection (1) of section 375 make it incumbent on the Court to order issuance of the Certificate, subject to the furnishing of a surety in addition to the execution of the bond. However, where the case for grant of Succession Certificate does not fall under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section 373, it is discretionary with the Court to require the person in whose favour the Certificate is issued to give security as a condition for grant of the Certificate.

Badri Narain Sahu v. Lackminia A I R 1935 Pat. 10 and S.

Ligamma v. S. Venkayya A I R 1944 Mad. 374rel.

‑‑‑S. 375‑‑Succession Certificate‑‑‑ Object of demanding security stated.

‑‑‑Ss. 370 to 390‑‑Sind Chief Court Rules (O.S.), R. 400‑‑Succession Certificate, grant of‑‑Requirements‑‑Grant of Succession Certificate being dependent upon a right to be established thereto, Court, held, would grant such Certificate on reaching conclusion that person claiming same has right thereto and not otherwise‑‑Grant of Succession Certificate in favour of Nazir of Court would not be possible.

‑‑‑Ss. 373 & 375‑‑Sind Chief Court Rules (O.S.), R. 400‑‑Expression, "unless otherwise ordered by the Court", connotation of‑‑Grant of Letters of Administration‑‑Furnishing of security whether necessary in view of 8.400 of Sind Chief Court Rules‑‑Expression, "unless otherwise ordered by the Court", held, would be restricted to those class of cases wherein, Courts grant Succession Certificate which do not fall either under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of S. 373, In spite of existence of 8.400 of Sind Chief 06urt Rules,' an application for grant of Letter of Administration has to .:furnish security alongwith execution of bond while obtaining same.

‑‑‑Ss. 373 8 375‑‑Succession Certificate, grant of‑‑Widow and sons of deceased residing in Pakistan seeking grant of Succession Certificate‑‑ Two sons of deceased residing abroad duly served‑‑Certificate of Succession, held, could be granted to applicant heirs of deceased without furnishing to‑security.

Iqbal Qazi for Petitioner in S.M.A. No. 154 of 1986.

N.M. Shaikh for Petitioner (in S.M.A. No. 169 of 1984).

A. Lateef A. Shakoor for Petitioner (in S.M.A. No. 250 of 1984)

Naseem Ahmad for Petitioner (in S . M. A . No. 168 of 1985) ,Ali Murtaza Hussain for Petitioner (in S.M.A. No. 209 of 1985), Akhtar Hussain for Petitioner (in S.M.A. No. 225 of 1985). Muhammad Ali Jan for Petitioner (in S.M.A. No. 304 of 1985). Syed Naqi Mirza for Petitioner (in S.M.A. No. 313 of 1985). Mushtaq A. Memon for Petitioner (in S.M.A. No. 6 of 1986). Hafiz A bdul Baqi for Petitioner (in S . M. A . No. 63 of 1986) . Zahid Marghoob for Petitioner (in S.M.A. No. 134 of 1986). Muhammad Yaqoob Kapadia for Petitioner (in S.M.A. No. 150 of 1986).

A.M. Hashmi for Petitioner (in S . M. A . No. 152 of 1986) . Petitioner in person (in S.M.A. No. 158 of 1986). Hasan Imam Rizvi for Petitioner (in S.M.A. No. 99 of 1985). Miss Wajahat for Petitioner (in S.M.A. No. 98 of 1986). 1985) M.A. Lakhani for Petitioner (in S.M.A. No. 231 and 232 of 1985).

Dates of hearing: 1st, 7th and 21st September, 1986.

In large number of cases, which came up before me from time to time, I noticed that the petitioners, after grant of Succession Certificates, or, the Letters of Administration, moved applications before the Court for dispensing with the surety, which was ordered as a condition for issuance of the above certificates. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly relied on the practice followed by this Court in this regard, and also urged that, in the alternative, the Court invariably, where the petitioners were unable to furnish security, ordered issuance of Succession Certificate in favour of the Nazir of this Court in order to realise the assets of the deceased and to distribute the same among the legal heirs of the deceased. As I entertained serious doubt with regard to the powers of the Court in dispensing with the surety while granting the Succession Certificate, or, Letters of Administration as well as issuance of such Certificate in favour of the Nazir of the Court, I ordered that all such cases, in which the petitioners had applied for dispensing with the surety after the grant of the Letters of Administration, or, the Succession Certificate, or, where request is made to grant the said Certificate in favour of the Nazir of this Court, be fixed on one day. I accordingly heard several learned counsel on the above point, and, after hearing them, my conclusion is, that in cases, where the Court grants Letters of Administration to al petitioner on his application, the Court has no power to dispense with the surety,' which is a condition precedent for issuance of Letters of Administration. However, in respect of Succession Certificates, where the case before the Court does not fall under subsection (3), or, subsection (4) of section 373 of the Succession Act, the Court has discretion in dispensing with the security while granting the Succession Certificate, but in respect of cases which fall under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section 373 of the Act, the Court cannot grant the Certificate of Succession without first obtaining security from the petitioner. I have also reached the conclusion that, in so far issuance of Certificates of Succession, or Letters of Administration in favour of the Nazir of the Court is concerned, the same is not authorised under any of the provisions of the Succession Act.

The case was argued at length by Messrs Iqbal Qazi, A . Lateef A. Shakoor and Naseem Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner in different cases, while the rest of the counsel adopted the arguments advanced by them. Mr. Iqbal Qazi, learned counsel for the petitioner in S.M.A. No. 154 of 1986 contended that the Court, while considering an application for grant of Succession Certificate under section 373 of the Succession Act can dispense with furnishing of surety by an applicant as a condition ,precedent for the grant of such Certificate if the case does not fall under subsection (3) or, subsection (4) of section 373 of the Act. However, where the case before the Court is covered under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of 'section 373 of the Act, the Court cannot dispense with the security which is a condition precedent for grant of the Certificate. Mr. Lateef A. Shakoor and Mr. Naseem Ahmad, on the other hand, contended that the Court has discretion to dispense with the security in all the cases, where the petition is presented for grant of Succession Certificate, or, Letters of Administration. The argument of Messrs A. Lateef A. Shakoor and Naseem Ahmad is adopted by the other counsel appearing in various petitions. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is necessary to examine the provisions relating to grant of Letters of Administration as well as Succession Certificate as contained in the Succession Act. Chapter I of the Succession Act, which contains sections 218 to 234, regulates the grant of Probates and Letters of Administration. Chapter II, which contains sections 237 to 260, deals with grants for limited duration. Chapter III of the Act, which contains sections 261 to 263, deals with the alteration and revocation of grant, while Chapter IV, which contains sections 264 to 302, relates to the practice in granting and revocating Probates and Letters of Administration. Section 291, which is contained in Chapter IV, reads as follows:‑

11291.‑(l) Every person to whom any grant of letters of administration, other than a grant under section 241, is committed, shall give a bond to the District Judge with one or more surety or sureties, engaging for the due collection, getting in, and administering the estate of the deceased, which bond shall be in such form as the Judge may, by general or special order, direct.

(2) When the deceased was a Hindu (Muslim), Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina or an exempted person:‑

(a) the exception made by subsection (1) in respect of a grant under section 241 shall not operate;

(b) the District Judge may demand a like bond from any person to whom probate is granted."

A careful reading of this section will show that every applicant in whose favour Letters of Administration have been granted, other than a grant under section 241 of the Act, is required to give a bond) to the District Judge with one or more surety or sureties for due collection and administration of the estate of the deceased. The bond to be executed by the petitioner is to be in such form as may be prescribed by the Judge. The language of section 291 of the Act leaves no discretion with the Judge, while granting Letters of Administration to a petitioner, to dispense with the execution of the bond or providing surety or sureties as the case may be. The word "shall" used in subsection (1) of section 291 is used in an imperative sense in contradiction to sub‑clause (b) of subsection (2) of the same section, where it is discretionary with the Judge to demand a bond from a person to whom a Probate has been granted. Mr. A. Lateef A. Shakoor and Mr. Naseem Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners in two cases relied on the cases of Ramchandra Ramratan v . Ramogopal Onkarji and others A I R 1957 Madhya Bharat 31 and Zubeida Khatoon v. Muhammad Zakaria A I R 1938 Rang. 67 in support of the contention that a Judge, granting Letters of Administration, has discretion to dispense with the surety. Although the head notbs of these two cases appear to support the contention of the learned counsel, but a careful reading of the case itself will show that both these cases decided by the Court related to the grant of Probates and not Letters of Administration. I have already reproduced the provisions of section 291. of the Succession Act, which provides for execution of administration bond, and, after reading the said section, I am in no doubt that, while in cases of grant of Letters of Administration, the execution of the bond with surety or sureties is a must, as provided under section 290(1) of the Act, the same is discretionary with the Court, while dealing with a case of grant of Probate pursuant to a Will. Both Mr. A. Lateef A. Shakoor and Mr. Naseem Ahmad also cited the case in the Goods of Kumar Projendra Narayan Singh Does A I R 1953 Cal. 606 to contend that the observation in the above case supported their contention that Letters of Administration could be issued only on execution of administration bond. The case cited by the learned counsel is on the point that, where a bond is directed to be executed by the person in whose favour Letters of Administration is granted, then such bond is to be executed by him personally and individually, and not by his attorney. I have carefully read this case, and I do not find any observation, which supports the contention of the learned Advocates that Letters of Administration could be issued by a Court without asking for surety. Mr. Iqbal Kazi, learned counsel in one of the petitions also expressed the view that, in cases of grant of Letters of Administration, the Court has no discretion to dispense with the furnishing of surety by a person in whose favour the Court grants Letters of Administration. I am, therefore, of the view that, under section 291 of the Succession Act, an applicant in whose favour Letters of Administration have been granted by the Court must execute a bond with one or more sureties as directed by the Judge, as a condition precedent for the issuance of Letters of Administration, and that, under this section, the Court has no power to dispense with the sureties altogether while granting Letters of Administration. However, the case of grant of Probate, which is governed by subsection (2) of section 291 is different, but it is not necessary to express any conclusive opinion here at this stage, as, in none of the cases before me, the question of grant of probate is involved.

I will now take up the cases, where the petitioners, after the grant of Succession Certificate, have applied to the Court for dispensing with the furnishing of security on several grounds contained in their respective applications. Mr. Iqbal Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioner in S.M.A. No. 154 of 1986, contends that, if the case of the applicant is not covered under subsection (3)1 or subsection (4) of section 373 of the Act, the Court has discretion in dispensing with the furnishing of security in appropriate cases. Section 373, which lays down the procedure for grant of Succession Certificate, is as follows:‑

"373.‑(1) If the District Judge is satisfied that there is ground for exitertaining the application, he shall fix a day for the hearing thereof and cause notice of the application and of the day fixed for the hearing:

(a) to be served on any person to whom, in the opinion of the Judge, special notice of the application should be given, and

(b) to be pasted on some conspicuous part of the Court house and published in such other manner, if any, as the Judge, subject to any rules made by the High Court in this behalf, thinks fit, and upon the day fixed, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, shall proceed to decide in a summary manner the right to the certificate.

(2) When the Judge decides the rights thereto to belong to the applicant, the Judge shall make an order for the grant of the certificate to him.

(3) If the Judge cannot decide the right to the certificate without determining questions of law or fact which seem to be too intricate and difficult for determination in a summary proceeding, he may nevertheless grant a certificate to the applicant if he appears to be the person having prima facie the best title thereto.

(4) When there are more applicants than one for a certificate, and it appears to the Judge that more than one of such applicants are interested in the estate of the deceased, the Judge may, in deciding to whom the certificate is to be granted, have regard to the extent of interest and the fitness in other respects of the applicants."

A careful examination of the provisions of section 373 will show that, under subsection (2) of section 373, where the Judge, dealing with an applicant for grant of Succession Certificate, reaches the conclusion that the right belongs to the applicant, he is bound to make an order for grant of Certificate to him. However, in cases, which are covered under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section 373, if the Judge is of the view that the right claimed by the applicant cannot be decided without determining intricate and difficult questions of law and fact, or, where there are more applicants than one and it appears to the Judge that more than one of such applicants are interested in the estate of the deceased, the Judge may nevertheless grant the Certificate in both such cases to such of the applicants who appear to be having a prima facie best title and fitness to the grant of such certificate. However, in respect of these two class of cases, which are covered under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section 373 the power of the Judge to grant the Succession Certificate is circumscribed to the condition that, before granting such Certificate, he must require the person in whose favour he grants the Certificate to give sufficient security as a condition precedent for rendering the account of debts and securities received by him and for indemnity of the person, who may be entitled to the whole or any part of those debts and securities. The provision, relating to furnishing of security by the applcant for grant of Succession Certificate is contained in section 375 of the Succession Act, and it is necessary to consider in detail the said provision here, as it is only on a proper construction of this provision of law that the extent of the discretion vested in the Court in dispensing with the furnishing of security by the applicant can be determined. Section 375 of the Act reads as follows:‑

"375.‑‑(1) The District Judge shall in any case in which he proposes to proceed under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section 373, and may, in any other case, require, as a condition precedent to the granting of a certificate, that the person to whom he proposes to make the grant shall give to the Judge a bond with one or more surety or sureties, or other sufficient security, for rendering an account of debts and securities received by him and for indemnity of persons who may be entitled to the whole or any part of these debts and securities.

(2) The Judge may, on application made by petition and on cause shown to his satisfaction, and upon such terms as to security, or providing that the money received be paid into Court, or otherwise, as he thinks fit, assign the bond or other security to some proper person, and that person shall thereupon be entitled to sue thereon in his own name as if it had been originally given to him instead of to the Judge of the Court, and to recover, as trustee for all persons interested, such amount as may be recoverable there under."

It is significant that, in the same subsection (1) of section 37516 of the Act, the Legislature with reference to different situations used two different expressions namely "shall" and "may" to express their intention. The word "shall" in section 375 is used with reference to the class of cases, which fall under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section 373, and in which, in spite of involvement of intricate and difficult questions of law and fact, the Court decides to proceed in a summarily manner to determine the right to the grant of Succession Certificate to the applicant. In such cases, the provisions of subsection (1) of section 375 make it incumbent on the Court to order issuance of the Certificate, subject to the furnishing of a surety in addition to the execution of the bond. However, where the case for grant of Succession Certificate does not fall under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section 373, it is discretionary with the Court to require the person in whose favour the Certificate is issued to give security as a condition for grant of the Certificate. I, therefore, agree with the contention of the learned counsel, Mr. Iqbal Kazi that, except in cases, which are covered under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section 373 of the Succession Act, in all other cases the Court, while granting the Succession Certificate, will have a discretion either to insist or not to insist upon furnishing of security by the applicant according to the circumstances of each case. The conclusion that furnishing of security in such case of grant of Succession Certificate is discretionary is also supported by the decision in the cases of Badri Narain Sahu v. Lackminia A I R 1935 Pat. 10 and S. Ligamma v. S. Venkayya A I R 1944 Mad. 374. In both the above cases, which were decided by the two Division Benches of Patna High Court and the Madras High Court respectively, the learned Judges took the view that ordinarily a Hindu widow ought not to be called upon to give security at all. It was observed in these cases that the object of a Court in such proceedings is to grant certificate to the persons lawfully entitled to them, and not to go out of its way to make it difficult for them to obtain them. A reading of section 375 of the Succession Act will show that the object of demanding security from a person in whose favour‑ Succession Certificate is granted by the Court is to ensure proper rendition of the account by him of the debts and securities of the deceased received by him and to provide indemnity to such person, who may be entitled to the whole or any part of these debts and securities. It is, therefore, quite clear that, where all the heirs of the deceased are before the Court, and there is no doubt that any other person is or may be entitled to the estate of the deceased and all such persons are adult and major and they express their consent for the grant of Succession Certificate in favour of one of the heirs of the deceased, the Court in such clear cases may not at all insist upon furnishing of the security by the petitioner, as after all, the estate of the deceased belongs to its heirs, who survive him, and the object of H granting Succession Certificate to all such heirs is the proper distribution of the assets of the deceased among the persons, who are entitled to receive their shares out of the estate of a deceased. However, in cases, where there are minors or the Court entertains some doubts that there may be some other person entitled to the estate of the deceased, from the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court may nevertheless, where all the persons before him have supported grant of Succession Certificate to one of them and have also expressed their willingness that such Certificate may be granted without asking for security, the Court may order that Succession Certificate be issued only upon executing the bond with surety.

I will now take up the question, whether a Certificate of, Succession can be granted in favour of the Nazir of the Court. In several petitioners, where the petitioners, who were unable to furnish security pursuant to the order of the Court, made an alternate prayer that, as they were unable to furnish security, the Certificate may be granted in favour of the Nazir of the Court with direction to recover the amount due to the estate of the deceased, and distribute the same among the various legal heirs. The learned counsel in all the above cases were unable to point out any specific provision of law under which the Court could grant Succession Certificate in favour of the Nazir of the Court. However, all the learned counsel generally referred to the past practice followed by this Court in which the learned Judges did grant Certificates in favour of the Nazir of this Court, authorising him to collect the debts and securities of the deceased and to distribute the same amongst the legal heirs of the deceased in proportion they are found to be entitled I have given my anxious consideration to this aspect of the case, and I regret that I do not subscribe to the view that a Certificate of Succession can be granted to the Nazir of this. Court in respect of the debts and securities belonging to a deceased. The grant of Succession Certificate to a petitioner depends upon his right to claim a share in the estate of the deceased either by virtue of being a heir or a person otherwise entitled under the law to claim a share out of the estate of the deceased. A reading of the provisions contained in sections 370 to 390 of the Act in Part X will show that the grant of Succession Certificate is dependent upon a right to be established thereto. Under subsection (2) of the section "373, the Judge can grant Succession Certificate when he positively reaches the conclusion that the applicant has a right thereto, and not otherwise. The Nazir of 1 this Court cannot possibly fall in any of the categories, so as to enable him to assert a right for grant of Succession Certificate. In my humble view, therefore, the grant of a Succession Certificate in favour of the Nazir of the Court is not possible under the provisions of the Succession Act. One more question was argued before me that the Court has absolute discretion either in asking or dispensing with the surety both in the cases of Letters of Administration as well as Succession Certificate, as would appear from the provisions of Rule 400 of the Sind Chief Court Rules (O.S.). The instant rule relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is as follows:‑

"400. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court or in non‑contentious matters by the District Delegate, an administration bond or Succession Certificate bond shall be given with two or more sureties, approved by the Nazir, for the amount of the value of the property for which the grant is made or succession certificate issued:

Provided that, if the value is under Rs.500, one surety only may be taken."

The learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized on the opening words of this Rule, "Unless otherwise ordered by the Court" to contend that the above expression used in the rule makes it abundantly clear that there is a discretion with the Court to make an order for dispensing with the surety which, in the absence of such a discretion has to be furnished by an applicant both in the cases of Letters of Administration and Succession Certificate. I have already referred to the provisions of law under which Letters of Administration and Succession Certificate are granted to an applicant, and, in a detailed discussion, I have reached the conclusion that, while granting Letters of Administration, the Court has no discretion to dispense with the surety and execution of the bond, while in some class of cases, where Succession Certificate is granted by the Court and the cases do not fall under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section 373 of the Act, the Court has discretion to dispense with the furnishing of security by the applicant. Rule 400 of the Sind Chief Court Rules (O.S.) relied by the learned counsel for the parties is in the nature of subordinate legislation, and it cannot override the effect of section 291 or section 375 of the Succession Act. The expression "Unless otherwise ordered by the Court" is, therefore, restricted to the class of those cases in which the Courts grant Succession Certificate and which do not fall either under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section 373 of the Succession Act. It cannot be overlooked that Rule 400 applicable to the Original Side of this Court and which regulates the furnishing of security in cases of grant of Succession Certificate and Letters of Administration is in the nature of subordinate legislation, and, if it is in any manner in conflict with the substantive provision of law, which deals with the procedure of grant of Letters of Administration and Succession Certificate, then to the extent of inconsistency between the two, the rule must give way to the provisions of the Act. However, it is not necessary to examine this question here, as it has not been contended before me by any of the learned counsel that there is any inconsistency between Rule 400 of the Sind Chief Court Rules (O . S. ) and section 291 or section 375 of the Succession Act. I am, therefore, of the view that, in spite of the existence of Rule 400 on the Original Side Rules, an applicant for grant of Letters of Administration has to furnish security alongwith the execution of the bond, while obtaining Letters of Administration.

Having dealt with the question of furnishing of security generally in respect of issuance of Letters of Administration and Succession Certificate. I will now take up the question of grant of Succession Certificate in S.M.A. No. 154 of 1986, which is the leading case, on its own merits. Mr. Iqbal Qazi, learned counsel for the applicant, contended that the Certificate may be issued without asking for security in the case, as all the heirs of the deceased are major, educated and have unequivocally expressed their desire for issuance of such Certificate in favour of one of the sons of the deceased. The application for Succession Certificate is made by one of the sons of the deceased, who is survived by six sons, including the petitioner and a widow. Out of the seven heirs of the deceased, five are resident in Karachi, while heirs 6 and 7 are residents of U.S.A. The property, for which Succession Certificate has been applied for, is mostly shares held by the deceased, capital left in a firm, N.I.T. Certificates, etc. All the heirs of the deceased are educated persons and are major. The widow and the other sons of the deceased have filed their affidavits, stating that the Certificate may be granted in favour of the petitioner without asking K for security. There appears to be no other person entitled to any, share in the estate of the deceased, as the petition was duly published and a notice of the petition was also pasted on the Court Notice Board, but no one came forward to make any claim in respect of deceased's estate, I am, therefore, satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of Certificate of Succession without furnishing of security. I accordingly order that the Certificate of Succession may be issued in favour of the petitioner only upon execution of personal bond.

A.A. Application granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.