1. The appellant filed appeal aggrieved from the order dated 23-1-2002, passed by the learned Single Judge on the application filed by the appellant in S.M.A. No,111 of 1996, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the application and directed that the property in question be mutated in the names of the legal heirs of the deceased in accordance with law. Brief facts of the case are that the legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Malook had applied for the letters of administration in respect of the assets left by the deceased. The appellant company was established by the Government of Sindh as a company limited by guarantee without any share and share capital. On 17-5-1989, plot, bearing No,B-7/A was leased out in favour of deceased to use the same for the purpose of small cottage industry/engineering consultants office and not to use or permit to be used the demised land or any building or structure thereon for any other purpose, except with the previous consent in writing of the lessor. It is further stated that one of the conditions of the lease was that the tenant/deceased shall bring the plot under full utilization within 12 months and in (sic) by the Board from time to time shall be payable on demand. It is alleged that the deceased till his demise on 5-2-1993 had done absolutely nothing whatsoever to establish stipulated industry as provided in the lease.
2. The legal heirs applied for the letters of administration in respect of the assets left by the deceased, which was granted on 1-2-1997. It appears that after the grant of letters of administration the administrators approached the appellant to mutate the names of the legal heirs in the records in respect of the plot in question, which appellant avoided to mutate. The appellant instead of mutating the plot in the names of the legal heirs, filed application to recall the letters of administration granted to respondents in respect of the plot in question. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the application and directed the appellant to mutate the plot in question and take necessary steps in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred this appeal. Heard Mr. S.A. Samad Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, Miss Sofia Saeed, learned counsel for respondent No,1 and Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Khan, Addl. A.-G., Sindh, on behalf of respondent No,2. The learned advocate for the appellant argued at length that the SITE is a company incorporated by the respondent No,2 and can act only within the parameters of its Articles of Association and cannot be directed to act nor can act contrary to its Articles of Association. The learned counsel argued that the deceased was in the employment of the appellant and apparently misused his position in the appellant's office and got allotted the plot in question in his favour. He further argued that since the deceased failed to establish small cottage industry and raised construction on the plot in question within stipulated period of time, the property in question is liable to be resumed and as such the appellant cannot mutate the plot in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased. We have gone through the memo. Of appeal and also taken into ,consideration arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant executed registered Lease Deed dated 17-5-1989 in favour of the deceased in respect of Plot No,B/7-A, i,e, plot in question. Sub- clause (2) of clause 5 of the said Lease Deed provides that at the option of tenant, lease can be renewed for further thirty years. The learned advocate for the appellant did not point out any clause in the Lease Deed whereby appellant has been authorized to terminate the lease in case of death of the lessee or that the right accrued to the lessee/tenant cannot be inherited by the legal heirs. In reply to our query the learned counsel for the appellant admitted that the SITE in case of death of the tenant mutates the names of the legal heirs of the said tenant in respect of the properties allocated to them. But further stated that since in the instant case the deceased had failed to put property in use in terms of the lease and further that the very property has been got allotted by misrepresentation the appellant is not bound to mutate the names of the legal heirs of the deceased. We are afraid that the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant has any force. We are of the view that the property in question was one of the assets left by the deceased and the legal heirs inherited the same as admittedly property stood in the name of the deceased at the time of his death and even today same stands in the record of appellant in the name of deceased. The legal heirs inherited the property in question, with whatever right deceased had in it, and if there is any defect in the title the legal heirs had inherited the defected title and merely because the property has been mutated in the names of the legal heirs of the deceased does not mean in any way that the defect, if any, initially intact to the said property has been wiped off nor the same disentitles the appellant to take action, if any, they intend to take against the legal heirs.
3. In the matter pertaining to letters of administration the Court only determined the question about the assets left by the deceased and inherited by the legal heirs and in appropriate cases undertook to investigate adverse claim between the legal heirs in the said proceedings, but merely because the letter of administration has been issued, the same does not tantamount to confirming title on the legal heirs. We have noted that even in the impugned order, the learned Single Judge observed that the appellant can take necessary step in accordance with law, if there was violation of restrictive covenant or the deceased was not entitled for the allotment. The appeal for the above reasons was dismissed in limine and these are the reasons of our short order dated 23-4-2003.