' This application for grant of Succession Certificate of the debts and securities of late Muhammad Hanif Qureshi alias Sadary son of Rahim Bux is filed by Muhammad Saleem son of the deceased.
2. According to the averments made in the petition the deceased has left Mst. Jehan Ara wife of Hamid Khan and Mst. Shahnaz Begum wife of Ramzan Ali both daughters and the residents of Agra (India) from the first wife namely, Mst. Shahinshai Begum and one daughter and two sons namely, Mst. Uzma Naz wife of Muhammad Tariq, Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Naeem, all residents of Karachi as his next-of-kins from Mst. Razia Begum the second wife.
3. The Succession Certificate is sought in respect of the debts and securities mentioned in the Schedule 'H' to the petition.
4. The deceased died at London but was buried in Karachi as per extract from Paposh Nagar Graveyard, Karachi.
5. Notice of the main application was served on the attorney of the next-of-kins Nos. 1 and 2 and on next-of-kins Nos. 3 and 5. Notice was also published in the following newspapers:- ' Daily "Khaleej Times", dated 16-5-1985 of U.A.E., and Daily "Morning News", dated 17-5-1985.
' Notice of the main application was also affixed on the Court Notice Board as per office note based on bailiff's report.
6. Muhammad Rais Sadri attorney of Mst. Jehan Ara and Mst. Shahnaz Begum has filed an affidavit stating that he has no objection to the grant of Succession Certificate.
' Mst. Uzma Naz wife of Muhammad Tariq and Muhammad Naeem son of late Muhammad Hanif also filed the separate affidavits stating that they have no objection to the grant of Succession Certificate. Besides, Muhammad Sarwar Khan and Muhammad Khalid Ameen, two residents of the locality and in the neighbourhood have also filed their affidavits inter alia, stating that they knew the deceased and he had left the petitioner and the four sons and daughters named in the application as his surviving legal heirs and that he left no other legal heir.
7. I may mention that Muhammad Azim Khan Sadari son of late Muhammad Saleem Khan, resident of 92-B, Sindhi Muslim Housing Society, Karachi has filed his affidavit wherein he has stated that he is the real paternal-cousin of the petitioner and that he is one of the administrators appointed by the High Court of Justice, London. From the averments made in the application it appears that the deceased had left approximately a sum of L.1,44,248-04 in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, Earls Court Road Branch, London. The Letters of Administration were obtained from the High Court of Justice, London in respect of this amount. A photostat copy of the letters of administration is annexed to the petition. In it the names of the next-of-kins are mentioned and those are the same as mentioned in the application under consideration.
9. However, the question that arises for consideration is whether more than one Succession Certificate can be granted as the petitioner has already obtained in respect of certain debts mentioned hereinbefore from the High Court of Justice, London. It is submitted by Mr. Abid that more than one Succession Certificate can be granted and in support of the submission he relies on subsection (3) of section 372 of the Succession Act, 1925, which reads as follows:- "372. Application for Certificate (1)..................................................................................................................................
(2).......................................................................
(3) Application for such a certificate may be made in respect of any debt or debts due to the deceased creditor or in respect of portions thereof."
' The provisions of this subsection came up for consideration in MRs, Sufis Khanam and others v.
Abdul Haq Khan and others PLD 1968 Dacca 952, on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Abdul Wahid Abid, wherein a Division Bench of the Dacca High Court in support of the proposition that more than one Succession Certificate may be granted observed at page 956 of the report as follows:- "To lay down a limitation in the granting of a certificate where there is none in the statute might involve denial of justice in some cases. Courts should have unfettered discretion to do complete justice in a matter unless the law imposes a limitation. In this case no limitation regarding number of certificates can be imposed as, we are of opinion that no such prohibition is laid down by law. A Court has to decide after all relevant considerations as to whether or not it would be in the interest of justice to grant more than one certificate in a case where there is more than one applicant for the same. The Legislature appears to have left the matter to the discretion of the Judge who is empowered to issue more than one certificate by reason of subsection (3) of section 372."
' In support of the above observation reliance has been placed by the learned Judges of Dacca High Court on a Division Bench judgment of the Lahore High Court in Malik Fateh Muhammad and others v. Malkani Bhag Bhari PLD 1950 Lah. 253 and on a Bombay High Court judgment in Abdul Gafur Mahmad Saheb Maniyar v. Jayarabi Ibrahim and others AIR 1929 Born.
456.
' Reference may also be made to a Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which consisted of Woodroffe and Carnduff, JJ., in Smt. Annapurna Dassy v. Mini Mohan Dass and another 18 C W N 836. Wherein Woodroffe, J. While delivering the opinion of the Court, observed as follows:- "I do not see any principle why a person may not, as in this case, apply for a certificate to enable him to recover a portion of a debt due to the deceased."
' This observation implies that more than one certificates can be granted.
' It may however, be worth noting that a Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Ghafur Khan v.
Kalandari Begum I L R 33 All. 327 took the view that there can be only one certificate in respect of the properties of the deceased. Subsequently, however, Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Sharifun Nissa Bibi v. Masum Ali and another I L R 42 All 347 though felt bound by a Full Bench decision but appreciated difficulties that might arise by reasons of the limitations expressed by the Full Bench.
' Nonetheless, these decisions of Allahabad High Court were not followed by a Division Bench of Dacca High Court in Sufia Khanam and others v. Abdul Haq and others (supra) and I have already quoted the relevant observations and the Full Bench decision of Allahabad High Court was expressly dissented from by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Muhammad Abtul Hussain v. Sarifan 16 C W N 321.
Since no objections have been filed to the application in spite of the publication of the notice and in view of the ample authority .To A grant more than one certificate I see no impediment in granting the Succession Certificate.
' I accordingly grant the same subject however, to compliance of the rules as to security and otherwise.