KHALID MEHMOOD, J.---By this judgment I propose to dispose of Civil Revision No.379 of 2010 and Civil Revision No.381 of 2010 as parties are the same as well as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
2. Petitioner Syed Shah Pir Mian Kazmi and his son namely Karar Haider, who is now dead, opened joint account No.0591-06-01-95 in Muslim Commercial Bank Mansehra Branch, Account No.006 in National Bank of Pakistan Main Branch Mansehra and Account No.167 in National Bank of Pakistan Lassan Thukral Branch Mansehra with clear instructions that accounts will be operated "either or survivor". In the last para of account opening forms it is clearly written as "it is understood that any balance which may now or hereafter stand to credit of bank accounts shall belongs to survivor(s) absolutely in event of any or either us dying while such account continue". On 29-5-2004 Syed Karar Haider, one of the joint account holders, died and respondents being legal heirs of deceased applied for issuance of succession certificate, which was contested by the present petitioners.
Learned Senior Civil Judge/Guardian Judge Abbottabad after recording evidence and hearing the parties and in the light of judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.132/1 issued a separate succession certificate. Feeling aggrieved both the parties preferred appeals and learned Additional District Judge-IV, Abbottabad after hearing arguments vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 22-5-2010 dismissed the appeal of petitioners and accepted the appeal of respondents and declared them entitled for the said amount deposited in the above mentioned accounts being successors of deceased Syed Karar Haider. Still feeling aggrieved, petitioners have filed these revision petitions.
Learned counsel for petitioners argued that amount deposited in the accounts does not come within the legacy of deceased Syed Karar Haider and is the sole ownership of Syed Shah Pir Mian Kazmi as per instructions and declaration of both the account holders when the joint accounts were opened. It was argued that petitioner being survivor of the account holder is .Legally entitled to receive the entire amount deposited in the banks as declared in the account opening forms to the exclusive of respondents but both the courts below have wrongly and illegally declared respondents entitle to receive the amount. In this respect he referred to the instruction No.162-163 laid down Standard Procedure Manual (Revised) No.8 of National Bank of Pakistan.
4 On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposed the contentions of petitioners and supported impugned, judgment and decree of appellate court.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Admittedly, deceased Syed Karar Haider had proceeded abroad in the year 1995 for post graduation, in the year 1998 he did M. Phil from United Kingdom and for the last time, in 2000 he again proceeded to United Kingdom for doing his Ph.D. All the three above mentioned joint accounts in the names of Syed Shah Pir Mian Kazmi and his son namely Karar Haider were opened during the years 2000, 2002 and 2003 in various banks when deceased Syed Karar Haider was abroad and deceased was earning handsome amount in pound sterling, during those days.
Amount in pound sterling was transferred through Exh.PW3/D-B, Exh.PW3/D-C and Exh.PW3/D-E.
There is nothing on record which suggest that petitioner Syed Shah Pir Mian Kazmi has any source of such great earnings and he himself had deposited money in the suit accounts. In the present case all the said bank accounts were opened under the instructions laid down by the concerned banks. Similar nature question was resolved in case of Guran Ditta v. T. Ram Ditta (AIR 1928 PC page 172). In that case money was deposited by husband in the name of himself and his wife. Teku Ram had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with Peshawar Branch Alliance Bank of Shimla in the name of himself and his wife payable to either or survivor. After evidence, it was proved that amount was deposited by the husband. It was held that wife is not entitled for the entire amount as the same was not gifted out to his wife. The contention of survivor mentioned in the opening form of Bank account was repelled.
7. The contention of respondents also holds the field as respondents have proved that all the amount was deposited from abroad in shape of pound/sterling by Karar Hussain deceased.
Moreover, petitioners had failed to prove the amount was gifted in favour of Pir Mian petitioner by late Karar Hussain. In this regard wisdom can be drawn from case of Habib Ullah v. Sheikhupura Central Cooperative Bank Ltd (1987 SCM R 53). The relevant portion of judgment on page 58 is hereby reproduced:- "Advancement, joint account.- Where a Muslim died leaving deposit in the joint names of himself and his daughter, payable to either of survivor, such, deposits did not constitute a gift in the nature of advancement to the daughter in the absence of proof of specific intention. There is a widespread practice in India to make transfer Benami, without the slightest intention. To transfer the beneficial interest; hence, the burden of proving the intention of an advancement is on the person who asserts it, though, in the case of close, relatives, very little evidence is enough to establish' the claim. Mujtabai Begum v. Mahbub Rehman (AIR 1959 Madh. Pages 359, 364."
8. Even in nomination cases, nominee is not entitled to receive the entire amount of deceased.
Such nomination could not override provision of Islamic Law of inheritance, therefore, no legal heir could be deprived from receiving their respective share. In this respect reliance can be made in case of Safdar Ali Khan v. Public at Large (2004 SCM R 1219).
9. Learned appellate court had correctly appreciated the legal and factual aspect of the case. I see no illegality, irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence, hence, revision is dismissed with no order as to costs.