1. JUDGMENTSAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J. - On the death of Khurshid Alam, who died issuless, his widow Mst. Parveen Akhtar, respondent No. 6 herein, applied for the grant of succession certificate, in which, the petitioner made an application to be impleaded as. Party that the deceased was-his father-in-law and husband of his daughter Mst. Shama. His claim was that Account Nos. 1926 and 2004 with the Allied Bank Limited, Landa Bazar, Lahore were jointly operated by him and the deceased and he had his money in those accounts, therefore, he be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. The application was opposed by the brothers and sisters of the deceased, the contesting respondents herein, and was dismissed .By the learned Trial Court on 3.6.1992. This is a petition by him against the same.
2. Admittedly, Khurshid Alam died issueless. He is stated to have adopted Mst. Shama as daughter, who is married to Arif Mansoor Ahmad. He'thus claims to be the son-in-law of deceased Khurshid Alam.
2. There is no concept of adoption in Islam. The claim of the petitioner that he is'son-in- law of the deceased-thus in law cannot stand. He, however, claims that he had some money in the accounts which, according to him, were being operated jointly and is entitled to the same, which claim is disputed by the brothers and sisters of the deceased. It is thus a disputed question of fact as to his interest and entitlement which cannot be gone into by the Court in the proceedings for grant of succession certificate, ln Mst. Charjo and another Vs. Dina Nath, etc- (AIR 1937 LHR 196) it was observed that in the matter of grant of succession certificate, the Court has to hold merely a summary inquiry for certificate to facilitate collection of debts and for giving valid discharge and it neither give an absolute right nor does it bar a regular suit for adjustment of the claims inter se.
3. The petitioner undoubtedly cannot be impleaded in these proceedings and may have his remedy for the determination of his interest.Or right in proper proceedings. His application has rightly been rejected by the learned Trial Court, which order does not suffer from any illegality.
4. In view of the above, this petition has na merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.