A. VII, R 11, O II, R 2, O IX, R 9 & O XX, Rr 13 & 18 Succession Act (XXXX of 1925) was dismissed for distribution of the same property for illegal prosecution in which the plaintiff. Party, the claim should have been continued, in which the claim is a current one for the same reason and is affected by the provisions of O II, R 2. & O IX, R 9, CPC The plaintiff needed to re-establish his first case within the stipulated time under O IX, R 9, CPC, O XX, R 13, CPC, CPC O Read with XX, R 18, CPC. There were separate features for distribution / administration. Once the case for late estate distribution was filed, the boundary was closed and the issue of inheritance could not be repeated between the same parties nor any second case for the division of the property of the late nor request for another succession. 3 may be filed under the Succession Act, 72 of 1925. The plaintiff was not the legal heir of the deceased because his mother, who was alive at the beginning of the succession, had inherited the property to claim her share in the estate. There can be no case of administration. Filed by someone who was not included in the legacy of the late at the beginning of the succession to claim anything from the inheritance route, the current lawsuit for grandfather's estate management should be dismissed because The plaintiff was not entitled to claim in the property of the mother, after the death of her parents the plaintiff died and the plaintiff did not claim the inheritance as the son of the first late daughter. The plaintiff was rejected for the same reason.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
