1. NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J. --- By C.M.A. No. 693/08 the petitioner has prayed for appointment of Objector Syed Ali Abbas, as guardian ad-item of minor Farkhunda Abbas while C.M.A. No. 694/08 is also for the same purpose but has been filed by the objector himself wherein the name of the minor has been shown as Syeda Fariha Abbas. As both the parties agree for the appointment of the Objector, Syed Ali Abbas, as guardian ad-item of the minor, therefore, both these applications are allowed and Objector Syed Abbas, who is the father of minor and apparently has no adverse interest in the estate of the deceased, is appointed as guardian ad-item of minor Farkhunda Abbas/Syeda Fariha Abbas.
2. Learned counsel for the objector states that the correct name of the minor is "Syeda Fariha Abbas" and in support of his submissions he has produced copy of the "B" form as well as her educational certificates. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Form "B" annexed as Annexure C/4 to the petition and states that the name of the minor had been taken from such form "B".
3. However, as the counsel for the petitioner has no objection to correct the name of the minor, therefore, at the oral motion of the Objector/father of minor the name of the minor is to be read as "Syeda Fariha Abbas". It is ordered that name of the minor appearing in para 3 of the petition as well as in the affidavits may be corrected accordingly in red ink.
4. This petition for grant of letters of administration has been filed by the father of the deceased Syeda Rabab Khatoon, who expired on 25.4.2007, leaving behind the legal heirs as mentioned in para 3 of the petition and the properties as mentioned in the amended schedule dated 6.12.2007 attached to the petition.
5. There appears to be some dispute between the parties with regard to the Insurance Claim Life and Insurance Claim PF. While the petitioner claims that he being the nominee of the deceased is entitled to receive the entire amount and is not liable to distribute the same amongst the other legal heirs of the deceased. The learned counsel for the Objector, on the other hand, claims that the above amounts are for the benefit of the family of the deceased and the petitioner is not entitled to retain the entire amount. He states that the petitioner being the nominee can only receive the said amounts and then liable to distribute it amongst the legal heirs of the deceased according to their shares. Learned counsel referred to the definition of word "family" appearing in Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969 and the Rules of 1972.
6. The learned counsel appearing for Habib Bank Limited has filed comments on behalf of the Bank and states that nominee to the exclusion of others is entitled to Life Insurance and Insurance Claim from Provident Fund and Benevolent Fund Rs. 2,000/- per month for a period of 15 years. He further states that Provident Fund, leave encashment and H.B.L. Welfare units are to be distributed amongst the legal heirs in accordance with law. Regarding pension, he submits that it is only widow or minor children, who are entitled to the pension and husband, parents or adult children are not entitled to monthly pension.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed that pension of the deceased is payable to the husband/minor daughter of the deceased, however, they have disputed the right of each other to receive the benevolent fund grant.
8. The learned counsel agree that apart from the above amounts the parties agree that the other amounts/assets are liable to be distributed amongst the legal heirs of the deceased in accordance with their respective shares.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions from his client states that the petitioner and his were Mst Akbari Begum. Mother of the deceased, will not claim their shares in items Nos.4, 5 and 6 of para 6 of the petition.
10. Now there appears to be dispute between the parties in respect of Insurance Claim Life and Insurance Claim PF and the monthly benevolent fund grant of Rs. 2000/-. '
11. The following questions are formulated on which the learned counsel are to satisfy this Court on the next date:---
(1) Whether the above disputed items are Taraka (estate of the deceased) and form part of the divisible poor.
(2) Whether the above items can only be claimed by the nominee to the exclusion of the other legal heirs of the deceased?
12. If the parties fail to reach a settlement amongst themselves or fail to satisfy the Court on the above questions, the present petition may be converted into a regular suit in terms of Section 295 of the Succession Act to the extent of dispute between the parties and may be tried accordingly. .