SALAHUDDIN PANHW AR, J. At the outset learned counsel contends that appellant preferred petition for letter of administration but that was returned on the ground of jurisdiction by order dated 18.02.2020 passed by District Judge while relying upon sections 271 and 188 of Succession Act, 1925 whereas such sections speak about filing of succession petition; according to learned counsel for appellant with regard to letter of administration/probate choice is given to the parties to file petition at their convenience place; legal heirs claim their right of inheritance and contest if any can only be adjudicated by civil court; proceedings of succession or letter of administration are summary in nature; in present case of permanent abode of Mst. Khatija Khanum was Karachi in Federal B-Area, however, property admeasuring 1483-17 acres is located at Dera Ismail Khan; he has relied upon PLD 2016 Balochistan 39 as well referred sections 270, 271 and 288 of the Succession Act, 1925.
2. Since, the Act itself has categorized the 'succession certificate' and 'letter of administration/probate' and different mechanism have been provided for filing thereof as well grant thereof hence the difference is always to be appreciated, particularly when the same is created by the relevant law (Act) itself. Since the issue, involved, relates to letter of administration therefore, I find it just to keep myself confined to such issue only. The relevant provision of the Act, dealing with such issue reads as:--
270. When probate or administration may be granted by District Judge. Probate of the will or letters of administration to the estate of a deceased person may be granted by a District Judge under the seal of his Court, if it appears by a petition, verified as hereinafter provided, of the person applying for the same that the testator or intestate, as the case may be, at the time of his decease had a fixed place of abode, or any property, moveable or immoveable, within the jurisdiction of the Judge.
The bare reading of the above provision makes it clear and obvious that such application can competently be filed by the applicant either at the place where the testator/intestate, at time of his death, had a fixed place of abode or where any property (moveable or immoveable) is situated.
The competent court of such both places shall have the competence and jurisdiction to grant such letter of administration or probate, In short, such discretion (choice), provided by the law itself for convenience of the parties, legally can't prejudiced; any other view would, I insist, frustrate the above provision.
3. Without prejudice to above, I would also refer the provision of Section 271 of the Act which was referred by learned lower court for returning the application. The same reads as:--
271. Disposal of application made to Judge of district in which deceased had no fixed abode. When the application is made to the Judge of a district in which the deceased had no fixed abode at the time of his death, it shall be in the discretion of the Judge to refuse the application, if in his judgment it could be disposed of more justly or conveniently in another district, or, where the application is for letters of administration, to grant them absolutely, or limited to the property within his own jurisdiction.
The above provision speaks about a situation where the deceased had no fixed abode therefore same, in no way, would prejudice the scope and application of Section 270 of the Act. I would further add that this provision, too, does not prejudice the competence of the court but may be exercised by such court when such court itself is of the view that 'convenience for disposal of such application is with another district'. Thus, prima facie, this provision is also to advance convenience without prejudicing the jurisdiction and competence of the court(s), so provided in earlier provision i.e. Section 370 of the Act. I would also add that issuance of letter of probate or succession certificate cannot be treated as declaration with regard to legal heirship or title of the properties but purpose and scope thereof are always limited for specified purpose. In the instant matter since it is claimed that deceased had a fixed abode within jurisdiction of the learned lower court therefore order of returning the same does not appear to be justified when the same is not packed with reasons that how the just disposal of such application would be convenience at other place.
Accordingly, order whereby petition for probate was returned, is set aside with direction to the trial court to proceed further. However, learned trial court would, be competent to examine the record of rights and authenticity as well conduct verification coupled with publication; objections shall be invited through wide publication in the area where land is situated. Trial court would be competent to decide the jurisdiction issue, if is raised with reasons and justification at any stage.
Disposed of.