SA. MASUD AHMAD Versus KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4‑9‑1986 passed by the learned District Judge, West Karachi in S.M.A. No.227 of 1985 which was filed by the present appellant for obtaining Succession Certificate in respect of one Nanney Khan son of Abdul Subhan, an ex‑employee of the K.M.C. who expired on 4‑10‑1985. The respondent No.2 was impleaded as a party upon his application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. on the ground that he was allegedly nominated by the deceased for receiving the amount of group insurance as the brother. The learned District Judge by the order under appeal declined the Succession Certificate on the ground that the present appellant failed to establish his entitlement.

2. It is an admitted position that nobody had come forward in response to the public notice. The factum that the appellant was related to the deceased was l not even denied by respondent No.2, who had claimed the amount of group insurance as the nominee though it has been submitted by his learned counsel l before me that he was also related to the deceased and was nominated as such and was shown as a brother in the nomination. Be that as it may, the question in! issue is that in the absence of any denial on the part of respondent No.2 or anybody else as to the relationship between the appellant and the deceased as averred in the application, namely, father s maternal‑brother, his :application for! Succession Certificate could have been denied in :he absence of a finding that there was snore other close rely lion of the deceased; which included the appellant from succeeding any portion of his estate this aspect has not been looked into by learned District Judge.

3. I would, therefore, allow the above appeal and would remand the case to lire learned District Judge with the direction to dispose of the application for Succession Certificate afresh after hearing both the parties on the above aspect and after providing them an opportunity to produce further evidence, if any. However, there will be no order as to costs.

M.Y.H./S‑203/K Appeal allowed.