Summary: Background:After the death of Haji Gul Hassan Sheikh, Haji Sultan Mehmood obtained a succession certificate claiming to be the sole legal heir.Later, it was discovered that Haji Gul Hassan Sheikh had two wives and several legal heirs, including the present Appellants, who were daughters of one of the wives.The Appellants filed an application under Section 383 of the Succession Act, 1925, seeking the revocation of the succession certificate obtained by Haji Sultan Mehmood.---Issues:Whether the revocation of the succession certificate obtained by Haji Sultan Mehmood was justified.Whether the High Court's dismissal of the revocation application based on procedural grounds was appropriate.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that technicalities should not hinder the dispensation of justice, especially when the matter involves fraud and misrepresentation.Under Mohammadan law, all legal heirs are entitled to their respective shares in the inheritance, regardless of procedural irregularities.The Court criticized the High Court's decision to dismiss the revocation application based on technical grounds related to representation by counsel, stating that the representation of legal heirs by counsel is permissible under the law.The delay in filing the revocation application was deemed reasonable considering the circumstances, and the Appellants were entitled to revoke the succession certificate obtained through fraud.The Court directed the trial court to take action against Haji Sultan Mehmood for committing fraud under Section 198 PPC and ordered him to bear the costs of the litigation.---Citations/Precedents:Pervaiz Akhtar and another v. The Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and four others (1990 PSC 1109)Limitation Act, 1908Succession Act, 1925Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure---Quote:Limitation in this case where the daughters of the deceased filed an application for cancellation of succession certificate obtained by their step-brother showing himself to be the only heir would run from the date of knowledge.

Summary: The petitioner, Mst. Razia Begum, filed an application for the issuance of a succession certificate after the death of her son, Muhammad Jahangir Khan, who had a life insurance policy worth Rs. 10,00,000. The petitioner, as the mother of the deceased, claimed her rightful share (1/6th) of the insurance policy. However, the insurance policy named the respondent, Mst. Sana Mukhtar (the deceased's wife), as the nominee. The trial court dismissed the petitioner's application and directed the insurance company to pay the entire amount to the nominee (respondent). The petitioner appealed, but the appellate court upheld the trial court's decision. As a result, the petitioner filed the current civil revision petition. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Whether the proceeds of an insurance policy are considered part of the deceased's inheritance ("Tarka"). ----- 2) Whether a nominee can exclude other legal heirs of the deceased from receiving a share of the insurance policy. ----- 3) Whether the nominee acts as a trustee or administrator, responsible for distributing the insurance proceeds among all legal heirs. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Proceeds of Insurance Policy as "Tarka": The court ruled that the proceeds of an insurance policy fall under the definition of "Tarka" and should be treated as part of the deceased’s estate. The court emphasized that an insurance policy proceeds are inheritable assets and must be distributed according to Islamic inheritance laws. It was established that the insurance policy proceeds do not solely belong to the nominee but are subject to division among all legal heirs. ----- Role of the Nominee: The court held that the nominee, under Section 72 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, is merely a person authorized to collect the insurance proceeds. The nominee acts as a trustee or administrator and does not inherit the policy's proceeds exclusively. The nominee’s responsibility is to distribute the proceeds according to Islamic inheritance laws. The court emphasized that the concept of a nominee is alien to Islamic law, which mandates that inheritance be distributed among all legal heirs. ----- Decision: The court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and held that the petitioner (mother of the deceased) is entitled to her share of the insurance proceeds. The trial court was directed to issue a succession certificate in accordance with Islamic law, ensuring that all legal heirs receive their rightful shares. The court concluded that the insurance policy proceeds form part of the deceased’s estate ("Tarka") and should be distributed according to Sharia law. The nominee is only a trustee and not the sole beneficiary of the policy. ----- Citations/Precedents: Mst. Amtul Habib and Others v. Mst. Musarat Parveen and Others (PLD 1974 SC 185) Malik Safdar Ali Khan v. Public at Large and Others (2004 SCMR 1219) Mst. Ameeran Khatoon v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and Others (2005 SCMR 512) Muhammad Umar v. IGI and Others (2023 CLD 420) Mirza Muhammad Ameen, etc. v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1982 FSC 143) Wafaqi Hakoomat-e-Pakistan v. Awamunnas (PLD 1991 SC 731)

Summary: The case concerns a dispute over the succession of the estate of Moulvi Abdul Sattar, a deceased government employee. Succession applications were filed by the respondents, Yar Muhammad and Mst. Zahida Parveen (claiming to be the son and daughter of the deceased), seeking a succession certificate and letter of administration for the deceased's movable and immovable property. The trial court initially dismissed the applications, and the High Court later reversed this decision. The petitioner, Abdul Fateh, challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the respondents were adopted children and not legitimate heirs. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Whether the respondents, Yar Muhammad and Mst. Zahida Parveen, are legitimate heirs of the deceased, Moulvi Abdul Sattar. ----- 2) Whether the High Court erred by setting aside the trial court's decision and issuing a succession certificate based on Sections 372 and 278 of the Succession Act, 1925. ----- 3) Whether the matter of legitimacy and parentage should have been addressed through civil litigation rather than a summary succession proceeding. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ----- Legitimacy of the Respondents: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding that the respondents had sufficiently established their legitimacy as the biological children of Moulvi Abdul Sattar through overwhelming oral and documentary evidence. The petitioner failed to provide any substantial evidence or legal basis to challenge their parentage. ----- Succession Certificate Issuance: The Court held that the High Court’s decision to issue a succession certificate was correct under Sections 372 and 278 of the Succession Act, 1925, which provide for a summary procedure. The petitioner could not produce any credible evidence or legal documentation supporting the claim that the respondents were adopted and not legitimate heirs. ----- Civil Jurisdiction for Parentage Dispute: The Court noted that disputes regarding inheritance rights based on paternity or legitimacy should typically be pursued in civil court under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The petitioner's failure to initiate such a civil proceeding weakened his case. Additionally, the petitioner's standing to challenge the respondents’ legitimacy was questioned, as he had no legal character to seek such a declaration. ----- Paternity Challenges: Citing previous rulings, the Court reaffirmed that challenges to paternity must be made within the prescribed time limits under Article 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and only by individuals with a legitimate claim to the deceased’s estate. The petitioner did not meet these criteria. ----- Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to grant the respondents the succession certificate. The petitioner’s allegations were deemed unsupported by sufficient evidence, and his challenge to the legitimacy of the respondents was rejected. ----- Citations/Precedents: Laila Qayyum v. Fawad Qayum and others (PLD 2019 SC 449): Established the legal standards for challenging paternity. Munir Hussain v. Riffat Shamim (2023 SCMR 6): Reaffirmed the procedure for challenging paternity under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Article 91 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: Presumption of correctness attached to official records. Article 49 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: Relevance of public record entries. Article 128 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: Timeliness of paternity challenges. Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877: Legal character to challenge paternity in civil jurisdiction.

Summary: Intellectual property, Immovable and immovable in and their standing in succession.