1. ' The appellant filed appeal under section 384 of Succession Act, 1925 against the order passed in SMA No,27 of 2002, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the objections filed by the appellant and granted Letter of Administration to respondent.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed petition for grant of Letter of Administration in respect of immovable property, bearing No,13-D, Block A, situated at North Nazimabad, Karachi, being assets left by deceased Abdul Ghaffar, who died at Karachi on 28-1-1979, leaving behind widow Mst. Aisha Bai, four sons and two daughters. All the legal heirs filed their affidavits of No Objection to grant of Letter of Administration in favor of the respondent. Except appellant, no other person filed objection for the grant of Letter of Administration in favor of the respondent. The appellant, who claimed to be partner in partnership firm Messrs Commercial Textile, is real brother of deceased Abdul Ghaffar. In his objections the appellant mainly contended that the property in question is owned by the partnership firm Messrs Commercial Textile and not by late Abdul Ghaffar and as such the respondent and other legal heirs have no right in it.
3. ' Heard appellant Muhammad Usman in person and Mr. Luqmanul Hach Advocate for the respondent.
4. ' The appellant mainly argued that the appellant was partner alongwith the deceased Abdul Ghaffar in a firm known as Messrs Commercial Textile. He further argued that the said partnership was constituted in the year 1959 and the property in question have been purchased by the deceased in his name from the income derived by the partnership firm. He next argued that the deceased was using two different names and known as Abdul Ghafoor as well as Abdul Ghaffar.
5. ' On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the respondent argued that the firm Messrs Commercial Textile stood dissolved vide, deed of dissolution of the partnership dated 1-8-1974, the authenticity of which has been questioned by the appellant. The alleged partnership dated 1-1- 1969 was executed between four brothers including appellant and except the appellant no other partner has come forward to question the ownership of the property owned by the deceased and/or to question the authenticity of the deed of dissolution of the partnership firm dated 1-8- 1972.
6. ' Before us the appellant has not produced any document to show that the partnership was not dissolved on 1-8-1972 and was carrying on business after the date of dissolution. The said facts can be easily established by producing statement of accounts and/or return submitted to Income Tax Authorities. The learned Advocate for the respondent produced certificate issued by the Registrar of the Firm and from the perusal of the said certificate it appears that the appellant has retired from the firm on 31-7-1972 and the entry in this regard was duly recorded in the Office of the Registrar of the Firms on 30-10-1972.
7. ' For the foregoing reasons , the appeal has not merits and the same was dismissed in limine.
8. ' These are the reasons of our short order dated 30-4-2003.