1. ' In the present suit a statement was made by the learned counsel for the parties on 20-10-1991 that the surviving widow of deceased Dr. Hakimullah Siddiqi had died and that she did not have any issue from the deceased Dr. Hakimullah Siddiqi. Today Mr. Ibrahim Pishori, learned counsel for defendants Nos,6 and 8, has submitted a statement in Court to the effect that the said surviving widow namely Mst. Zohra Bi who is defendant No,10 in the suit as shown in the amended plaint had died on 29-9-1991 leaving behind 11 heirs as shown in the said statement. By consent of these present it is ordered that the names of the L.Rs, of deceased defendant No,10 be added in the title of the plaint with red ink as defendants Nos,10A to 10-K.This is suit for administration filed by one of the daughters of deceased Dr. Hakimullah Siddiqi, hereinafter referred to as the deceased, for administration of the properties left by him. The case of the plaintiff is that the deceased had obtained Diploma in Pharmacy from Dow Medical College and was subsequently admitted to be registered of the Pharmaceautical Society of Pakistan who had with the passage of time earned substantial sum and expanded his business and strated making substantial amount of investments both in the business and in the landed properties. The deceased is said to have acquired a plot of land bearing No,19 Row No,2, Sub-Block No,A, Nazimabad, Karachi measuring 262 sq. Yds. 'whereupon he constructed a bungalow consisting of ground and first floor. The deceased is also said to have acquired premises oppositc Light House Cinema on Katchery Road, Karachi, where he started the business of medicine manufacturing as a sole proprietary firm under the name and style of "Al-Chemist". It is also claimed that in the year 1961 the deceased purchased a commercial plot bearing No,SB-4, Block "F' North Nazimabad, Karachi measuring 666 sq. Yds.
2. Whereupon the deceased constructed a. Modern and up to date medicine manufacturing project alongwith automatic bottling plant which is still functioning. It is also claimed in the plaint that the deceased had constituted a partnership under the name and style of "Al-Chemist" and the partnership deed was executed on 9-7-1965 wherein he had made all his children from his wife namely Zafar Sultana (plaintiff and defendants 1 to 9) as partners in the firm having equal shares which firm is now being run by defendants Nos,6 and 8. It is further claimed that by an agreement dated 5-7-1967 the partnership deed was amended and period of partnership was limited to fixed period of 40 yeaRs, It is further claimed in the plaint that the defendants Nos,6 and 8 who are running the entire business have not rendered any accounts and are symphoning away the income and, therefore, this suit has been filed. It is claimed in the plaint that the value of the properties left by the deceased would be about 1 crore and 80 lacs. It is also stated that the business run by the defendants 6 and 8 is to the tune of sales of over Rs,60 lacs per year and that the said firm of "Al-Chemist" also had seven motor-cars amongst their assets. The suit was originally filed against the present defendants 1 to 9 only but a statement was made on 13-8-1990 to the effect that besides the said parties to the suit, the deceased also left behind one son and two daughters and the surviving widow who were also joined by consent as defendants Nos,10 to 13 and the amended plaint was filed. Again on 20-10-1991 a joint statement by the learned counsel was made to the effect that defendant No,10 was the 3rd wife of the deceased from whom he had no issue and she had also expired on 29-9-1991 and today a statement has been placed on record showing the heirs of deceased defendant No,10 which have also been brought on record. The defendants have filed their written statement except for defendants Nos,3, 10 and 12.
3. ' The matter was taken up for settlement of issues in presence of the Advocates and some of the parties as mentioned above. It is admitted by the parties that the deceased had 3 wives of whom the two had died during his life-time leaving behind them children who are also plaintiff and defendants 1 to 9 and 11 to 13 to the suit while his 3rd wife Mst. Zohra Bi died after the death of the decased but the deceased did not have any issue from her. The deceased is said to have expired in the year 1984. It is also admitted by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of arguments that the plaintiff and present defendants Nos,1 to 13 are entitled to shares in the properties left by the deceased as shown in paragraph 3 of the plaint which are as under:- {{TABLE}} Party name Share Plaintiff Defendant MRs, Rahat Ali 1/16 Plaintiff Mr. Qadeeruddin Siddiqi 2/16 Defendant Miss Shamin Siddiqi 1/16 MRs, Razia Sultana 1/16 MRs, Safia Sultana 1/16 Mr. Zaheeruddin Siddiqi 2/16 Mr. Masood Pervez Siddiqi 2/16 Mr. Mahmood Pervez Siddiqi 2/16 Mr. Saleem Pervez Siddiqi 2/16 10.. Mr. Mazhar Ahmad Siddiqi 2/16 Mst. Zohra Bi 1/18 Mst. Kubra Begum 1/16 Bashiruddin Ahmad 2/16 MRs, Fahmida Khalique 1/16 {{TABLE}} ' The only modification to the above shares will be that the newly joined defendants Nos,10-A to 10- K will now become entitled to 1/8th share of Mst.Zuhra Bi who had expired on 29-9-1991.
4. ' The parties however, are at dispute with regard to properties left by the deceased as the plaintiff claims that the plot on which the residential house was constructed and the plot on which the commercial factory was constructed, though purchased in the name of her deceased mother Zafar Sultana, remained the property of the deceased and therefore, divisible amongst his heiRs, This position is not denied by the other defendants except defendants 6 and 8 who contend that the said properties belonged to their late mother namely Zafar Sultana and it was these two defendants who raised the Modern Business of manufacture and supply of medicines. It may be observed that the purpose of a suit of administration is to administer the assets and properties A left by the deceased under the decree of the Court and distribute the same amongst the heirs or persons entitled to the same. From the above facts and 3 wives of whom 2 had died during his life time. The present plaintiff and admissions given by the parties it is an admitted position that the deceased had defendants Nos,1 to 9 are the children of the deceased from his first predeceased wife while defendants Nos,11 to 13 are the children of the deceased from his 2nd predeceased wife whereas defendant No,10 was the surviving widow from whom the deceased did not have any child. Under these circumstances the learned Advocates for the parties and all others present do not dispute the shares of the parties to which they would be entitled from the assets and the properties left by the deceased at the time of his death. Accordingly I hold parties to the suit to be entitled to their respective shares as mentioned above.
5. ' The other question that requires determination is as to what were the prop'erties owned by the deceased at the time of his death. This can best be done by appointing a Commissioner who may record evidence of the parties in this respect. Accordingly the present suit for administration is decreed and the Official Assignee is appointed as Commissioner who will allow the parties to lead their evidence in respect of the following issues which are referred to him:--
(1) What were the properties left by the deceased at the time of his death and who is in occupation or possession thereof?
(2) What would be the value of the properties left by the deceased and the products manufactured and marketted from the said factory?
(3) The Commissioner will take accounts of all properties since the death of the deceased till date.
6. ' The Commissioner will make efforts for finalisation of the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of this order.
7. ' Before parting with the case it may be observed that Mr. Ibrahim Pishori, learned counsel for the defendants Nos,6 and 8, has submitted that under an earlier order of the Court the said defendants had deposited a sum of Rs,2,60,000 in Court and has requested that this amount may be invested.
8. Accordingly it is ordered that the said amount be invested in some profit-earning scheme.
9. ' The parties will bear their own costs.