' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.---The defendants-appellants, through this Regular Second Appeal, have assailed the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the learned Courts below in their respective judgments, dated 20-9-2000 and 24-9-2004 in a suit brought by the plaintiffs/respondents for grant of declaration and injunction, seeking declaration of their entitlement to receive service benefits/dues accrued on the death of Muhammad Shafiq, an employee of the P.I.A.
2. Precisely, the facts necessitated institution of suit are that Muhammad Shafiq, predecessor of plaintiffs and appellant No,1 was serving in P.I.A. He, was contributory to Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance. Before his marriage, he nominated appellants to recover his benefits. Taking benefit of this nomination, upon his death, appellants withdrew the service benefits to the exclusion of plaintiffs and deposited in their joint account. Appellants started paying monthly profit of Rs,14,400 to the plaintiffs. Dispute arose between the parties. At appellants' instance, the bank refused to pay profit to the plaintiffs, constraining them to file a civil suit. Defendants submitted their written statement. Controversy was put to issues. Both parties produced their respective evidence. Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs. Appellant No,1, mother of deceased, was held entitled to receive amount in accordance with her Islamic share. Appellant No,2 was held not to be the legal heir of the deceased in presence of male issues. First Appeal was preferred which ended in dismissal.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants placing reliance on the judgment passed by Shariat Appellate Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wafaqi Hakumat Pakistan v. Awam-un-Nas (PLD 1991 SC 731) contended that the Group Insurance and Benevolent Fund not being part of the deceased estate was not inheritable by the respondent-plaintiffs, hence their suit merited, outright dismissal.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relying on the case of Mst. Ameeran Khatoon v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others (2005 $CMR 512) contended that amount of Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance would devolve upon the heirs of the, deceased being his `Tarka' and that no power was given to Mrs. Robina Tariq, special attorney, to institute and prosecute the appeal.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The sole question requiring determination is as to whether amount of Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance would devolve upon the heirs of the deceased being his `Tarka'. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mst. Ameeran Khatoon's case (supra) observed in para.5 of its judgment that the deceased was entitled for the Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance during his life time but on his death such amount shall be deemed to be owned by him and would devolve upon the legal heirs being his `Tarka'. Para 5 of the judgment is reproduced below for convenience:-- {{URDU TEXT}} "Applying above test on the facts of instant case, we are persuaded to hold that deceased Muhammad Ayub was not entitled far the Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance during his life time and on his death, such amounts shall be deemed to be owned by him. Thus, they will devolve upon his legal heirs being his `Tarka'. Therefore, petitioner would not be entitled exclusively to claim these amounts except to the extent of her entitlement as per Shariat with other legal heirs of the deceased as it has been held by this Court in the case of Mst. Amtul Habib and others v. Mst.
Musarrat Parveen and others (PLD 1974 SC 185)."
7. Applying the ratio propounded above, the respondents-plaintiffs are entitled to receive in inheritance the amount of Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance according to their Islamic share notwithstanding, nomination in favour of appellant, which is only meant for collection of dues.
8. As to institution of appeal by Mrs. Robina Tariq, special power of attorney (Exh.D.1) in her favour needs examination. She was authorized to prosecute the cause of appellants in civil suit. No power was given to her for institution of appeal. Power of attorneys are to be interpreted, strictly. Power not given in the attorney shall not be deemed. Liberal interpretation cannot be made for the reasons, that the judgment impugned herein, advanced the cause of justice in entitling the plaintiffs a widow, three sons including two minors of the deceased to receive their shares in the amount of Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance. Regular Second Appeal instituted by special attorney was not procedable and merited outright dismissal.
9. For what has been discussed above, this Regular Second Appeal is devoid of force and is thus, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.