LIMITATION OF GRANT AND REVOCATION OF SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE
Secession Act (XXXIX of 1925)
Section 372 and 383 — succession certificate, grant/revocation of — limitation period — no statutory period of limitation was provided for grant of any succession certificate under section 372 or its revocation under section 383 of the succession Act 1925 but even then it had to be availed within reasonable time.
2018 SCMR 762
Advocate and Pleader— Scope— Pleader is entitled to appear for another and not for himself—- If one wants to represent his/her client as advocate then he (advocate) is not legally entitled to examine himself in place of his party (client) as for such purpose he has to unclothe his status as advocate and has to clothe with attorney/authorized agent.
Negligence of counsel did not constitute sufficient cause
Parties are bound by the acts and omissions of their counsel
in ase of any negligence on party of the counsel, parties could not claim that they were not to be held responsible.
Negligence on the party of advocate, has a binding effect on his client— any negligence on the party of the advocate, was binding upon party which had engaged the advocate— if pary would engage a counsel who was lacking sense of responsibility to the court, it was the party who should suffer and not the other side.
Will would be valid to the extent of 1/3 of the property.. testator could not bequest his entire property, however he could bequest only 1/3 of his entire property with the consent of legal heirs—property could not be bequest in the favor of legal heirs without the consent of other legal heirs— scribe of will deed in the present case, was not mentioned nor had been produced by the plaintiffs— contents of will deed were against Quranic Version, Sunnah and law—Muslim could exercise his right to utilize his property as he wishes in his lifetime by alienating the same in any manner but he had no right to by-pass the dictates of Quran, Sunnah and prevailing law— Testator had no authority to deprive the legal heirs of their shari shares though will deed— statements of marginal witnesses of will deed were full of contradictions— Notary public who attested the will deed had not entered the same in his register— Legal right which had bestowed upon the heirs could not be jeopardized by executing an unregistered deed which was no in the knowledge of legal heirs— consent of other legal heirs had not been obtained while executing the will deed—said will deed has not been proved nor the same contained the description or property—Legal rights of defendants to the extent of their Shari shares could not be disturbed—Inheritance mutation attested in accordance with law was not liable to be annulled which was maintained—plaintiffs were bound to prove partition deed by producing cogent and confidence inspiring evidence— partition deed was unregistered documents which had not been proved— Temporary arrangement of partition for the purpose of produce of land would not amount to permanent private partition or a legal partition—Both the courts below had decided the this lis with conscious and application of independent mind=== revision was dismissed in the circumstances
Gift—Deathbed gift… proof… donor being a very old age and having unsound mind…… living at mercy of done…. Undue influence of done…. Lack of possession of done… effect… done allegedly gifted disputed property to one of his son/purported done at the exclusion of others.. at the time of making gift done was 92/933 years old, meaning thereby that he was fairly old at the relevant time… witnesses in their evidence stated that the donor did not enjoy sound mental health at the time of making gift and such evidence went unquestioned and thus remained unshaken.. such evidence appeared to by quite credible when considered in light of the age of the donor and other attending circumstances… effect of undue influence of done could not ruled out when the donor being old, infirm and incapacitated was living at the mercy of the done… Alleged done made contradictory statement regarding delivery of possession of disputed property to him and could not be said to have discharged the burden of proof to prove all the essentials of a gift therefore no valid gift was ever made in his favor—appeal was allowed accordingly. PLD 1975 SC 624, PLD 1964 SC 143, PLD 1977 SC 28
Gift— mental health of donor…. Relevance… evidence regarding mental health of donor could devastate the very basis of a gift
Gift… validity of gift challenged— burden of proof—when a gift was challenged the burden of proof lay on the done to prove that all essential of the gift were fulfilled