Pakistan Case Law← Search
PLD 2011 Karachi 382

Mst. SHADAB PERVEZ vs Mst. AMBREEN PERVEZ and another

CitationPLD 2011 Karachi 382
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.C. M.A. No,442 in S.M.A. No,21 of 2011 and C.M.A.No, 443 in S.M.A. No,22 of 2011
Date2011-05-02
Judge(s)Tufail H. Ibrahim
ResultApplications dismissed

ORDER

TUFAIL H. EBRAHIM, J.---Through these applications it has been prayed that the Letters of Administration and Succession Certificate in respect of the estate of the deceased may be issued to an officer of this Court on the grounds that the parties, who are legal heirs of the deceased, have mutually decided to do so. In C.M.A. No, 442 of 2011 the proposed administrator has been directed to perform certain functions including obtaining details/documents of properties from various departments/offices and to sell them and distribute sale proceeds amongst all legal heirs according to Shariah. Similarly in C.M.A. No, 443 of 2011 the proposed administrator has been directed to perform certain functions including obtaining amounts of the deceased as per schedule from various departments/Bank/company and to distribute the same amongst all the legal heirs according to Shariah.

' The petitions were filed by Mst. Shadab Pervez, the first widow of Pervez Akhtar for the grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of deceased Pervez Akhtar. In the petitions it was stated that the deceased had left the following legal heirs:-- S. No,Names Relationship Age

1. Mst. Shadab Pervez First Widow/Petitioner 53 years

2. Mr. Nida Pervez Daughter 26 years

3. Mr. Naveed Pervez Son 25 years

4. Mr. Nabeel Pervez Son 23 years

5. Mr. Aneel Pervez Son 22 years

6. Ms. Shehzeen Pervez Daughter 29 years

7. Mst. Ambreen Pervez Second Widow 29 years

8. Master Sultan Pervez Son 3 years ' It was also stated that Mst. Ambreen. Pervez, the second widow and the minor son of the deceased had not consented to the grant of the petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned counsel for the objector have failed to point out under which section or law they have filed these applications. For further clarification it would be appropriate to reproduce section 218 of the Succession Act, 1925 ("Act"), which reads as follows:-- "218. To whom administration may be granted, where deceased is a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh, Jaina or an exempted person.--(1) If the deceased has died intestate and was a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina or an exempted person, administration of his estate may be granted to any person who, according to the rules for the distribution of the estate applicable in the case of such deceased would be entitled to the whole or any part of such deceased' estate.

(2) When several such persons apply for such administration, it shall be in the discretion of the Court to grant it to any one or more of them.

(3) When no such person applies, it may be granted to a creditor of the deceased."?

There is no provision in the aforesaid section whereby an officer of this Court could be appointed as administrator in respect of the estate of the deceased. An administrator is under an obligation to administer the property of the deceased by way of transfer and/or distribution of the estate of the deceased in favour of all the legal heirs. An administrator has no right to sell the property under administration without the permission of the Court. In this case a minor is one of the legal heirs and this Court has to be more cautious and is under obligation to protect the interest of the minor.

Under section 291 of the Act, an administration bond is to be executed by every one to whom any grant of Letters of Administration is to be issued. Under section 368 of the Act, the administrator is liable to any damage or loss if he misapplies the estate of the deceased. Under section 369 of the Act, the administrator is liable to make good an amount if the administrator occasions any loss to the estate by neglecting to get any part of the property of the deceased. Under section 375 of the Act the person in whose favour Succession Certificate is required to submit personal bond with one or more sureties or other sufficient securities for rendering an account of debts or securities received by him. Under Rule 393 of the Sindh Chief Court Rules (OS) no grant of Letters of Administration, other than letters of administration pendent lite, shall issue to a creditor, or to a legatee, other than a universal legatee; or to a friend of the deceased until citation has first issued to the Administrator General of Sindh. Under Rule 407 of the Sindh Chief Court Rules (OS) inventory and the account required under section 317 of the Act has to be filed by the Administrator.

For the reasons and discussion as above, it is my humble view that any officer of this Court cannot be issued Letters of Administration as well as Succession Certificate within the meaning of the Act, nor the officer of this Court could be imposed upon the obligations, responsibilities or liabilities involved in the administration of the estate of the deceased, notwithstanding the fact that the officer of the Court could be subsequently made accountable for by any person interested in the estate of the decade in the future or involve the officer into litigation. For the aforesaid reasons and since in the present case there are legal heirs who are competent to manage the affairs of the estate of the deceased and there is no apparent dispute therefore in my humble view an officer of this Court cannot he appointed as an Administrator of the estate of the deceased. Accordingly both the applications are dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search