Civil Succession Appeal No.S-02 of 2015

[Bibi Sakina v. Bibi Nawab-Zadi & others]





1.   For orders on office objections ‘A’.

2.   For hearing of C.M.A. No.407/2015.

3.   For hearing of main case.


                        Mr. Ghulam Dastagir Shahani, Advocate for the Appellant.

                        Mr. Tahir Abbas Shah, Advocate for the Respondent No.5.



Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry J.-  This is a common Succession Appeal against orders dated 09.09.2015 passed in Succession Application No.62 of 2014 and Succession Application No.71 of 2014 both dated 09.09.2015.


2.         Succession Application No.62/2014 was filed by one of the sisters of the deceased, Syed Ashraf Ali Shah; whereas Succession Application No.71/2014 was filed by one of the daughters of the deceased, both praying for a Succession Certificate for the bank balance left behind by the deceased. In the former, all siblings and both daughters of the deceased were arrayed as respondents. In the latter only the daughters of the deceased were party.


3.         An application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was made by the siblings to join Succession Application No.71/2014; however, that application was dismissed on 07.02.2015 by observing that it was an admitted fact that the deceased was a Shia Muslim, and therefore in the presence of the daughters, the siblings would not inherit. In Succession Application No.62/2014, the daughters of the deceased filed objections contending that since the deceased was a Shia Muslim, his siblings would not inherit and therefore they are not entitled to a Succession Certificate. Both Successions Applications were decided on the same day. Succession Application No.71/2014 by the daughter of the deceased was granted, whereas Succession Application No.62/2014 by the sibling of the deceased was dismissed on the ground that order dated 07.02.2015 in Succession Application No.71/2014 had already observed that it was an admitted fact that the deceased was a Shia Muslim.


4.         Learned counsel for the Appellant points out that in passing the impugned order in Succession Application No.62/2014, the learned Additional District Judge has incorrectly attributed an admission to the siblings that the deceased was a Shia Muslim, whereas they had never made such admission. That submission appears to be correct.


5.         The matter as it presently stands is that both learned counsel accept that the purpose of a Succession Certificate is no more as the bank balance of the deceased has since been released by the bank to the daughters of the deceased. The only concern of learned counsel for the Appellant is that in the event the siblings of the deceased file a suit for recovery on the ground that they too are legal heirs of the deceased, the admission wrongly attributed to them in the impugned order may come in their way.


6.         Proceedings for granting a Succession Certificate are summary proceedings, non-contentious in nature, and do not amount to a declaration by the Court under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act that persons claiming to be legal heirs therein are in fact legal heirs of the deceased. For that, reliance can also be placed on the case of Jameela Akhtar v. Public-at-Large (2002 SCMR 1544). Therefore, in the event the siblings of the deceased seek such a declaration in a civil suit, the observations made in the impugned orders would not come in their way. So ordered. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Appellant prays for an observation that the period spent before this Court shall be excluded for limitation of the suit. Suffice to observe that the siblings may plead exclusion of limitation in filing suit and it will then be up to the civil court to examine that as per law.  Appeal disposed of in said terms.