 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
 
 
Civil Appeal No. 288 of 2013.  
(On 
appeal 
from 
the 
judgment 
dated 
28.12.2012 passed by the High Court of 
Balochistan in CMA No. 01/2011.). 
 
 
Zohra Bibi and another  
 
 
 
…Appellant (s) 
Versus 
 
 
Haji Sultan Mahmood and others 
 
 
…Respondent (s) 
 
 
 
For the Appellant (s): 
 
Raja Saif ur Rehman, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ahmad Nawaz Ch. AOR (Absent) 
 
For the Respondent (s):  
Mr. Shafqat Jan, ASC (for respondent No.1) 
 
 
 
 
            Mr. Tariq Aziz, ASC/AOR 
(for respondents No.2-4) 
 
Respondents No.5&6 
 
Ex-parte 
 
Date of Hearing:  
 
06.12.2017 
 
Judgment 
 
 
  
 
 
Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, J.- This appeal has arisen 
out of judgment dated 28.12.2012 of Balochistan High Court whereby 
appeal of Respondent No. 1 against the  judgment/order dated 28.02.2011 
of the Senior Civil Judge-II, Quetta was allowed and revocation of 
succession certificate dated 13.11.2006 was set aside by holding that the 
application for revocation of succession certificate was incompetently filed 
by present Appellants. 
C.A.No.288/13 
2
 
 
 
2. 
 
Brief facts of the case emerging out of the record would 
reveal that after the demise of propositus of the parties Haji Gul Hassan 
Sheikh, his son Haji Sultan Mehmood, Respondent No.1, herein, was 
successful in getting a succession certificate dated 13.11.2006 in his name 
by claiming himself to be the sole legal heir of the deceased propositus. 
After culmination of the proceedings in his favour, he alongwith his son 
Hassan Mehmood as guarantor also submitted an undertaking in the Court  
for submission of details of accounts and also held themselves jointly and 
individually liable/ responsible to satisfy the claim of any other legal heir 
of the deceased if any, in case someone comes forward. On getting 
knowledge of the said fraudulent act of Respondent No. 1, present 
Appellants moved an application under Section 383 of the Succession Act, 
1925 for revocation of said succession certificate bearing No. 35/2006 
dated 13.11.2006, the same was ultimately allowed by the trial Court vide 
its judgment/ order dated 28.02.2011. The Respondent No. 1 herein, 
feeling himself aggrieved of the order of revocation, questioned the same 
by way of an appeal before the High Court which was accepted and order 
of revocation of succession certificate dated 28.02.2011 of the trial Court 
was set aside, hence, the present appeal. 
 
3. 
 
Learned counsels for the parties were heard and the record of 
the case was perused. 
 
4. 
 
Perusal of the record would reveal that the fact that the 
deceased propositus of the parties had two wives, has never been disputed 
by any one. Present Appellants, the two daughters were from Mst. Noor 
Bibi and Respondents No. 1 to 4 herein, were from his other wife namely 
C.A.No.288/13 
3
 
 
Mst. Hussain Bibi (both the widows died during the pendency of 
application for revocation of succession certificate). 
 
 
 
Status and relationship of the parties intrse before the Court 
was never disputed even by the Respondent No. 1 rather he alleged in his 
reply that according to a family settlement, all the legal heirs had received 
their share of inheritance and for that reason they were deliberately not 
joined as party in the application for grant of succession certificate. When 
status and relationship of the parties with the predecessors in interest is not 
denied then every legal heir is entitled to get/ receive his/ her Shari share 
to the extent of his/ her entitlement in the property moveable/ immovable 
left by the predecessor. So, all the legal heirs of deceased Haji Gul Hassan 
have the right to get to the extent of their respective shares. Before 
proceeding further we may observe that Respondent No.1 in his reply 
alleged that every legal heir was paid his/her due share. So it was for the 
Respondent No.1 to have proved his stance of payment of respective 
shares to all the legal heirs but he has miserably failed to do so. Mere 
allegations in the pleadings would never be sufficient to establish the fact 
alleged in the pleadings. So, we without any hesitation observe that all the 
legal heirs are entitled to get the respective share in the legacy of 
propositus.  
s 
 
 
We at present are only concerned with the amounts shown in 
the application for succession certificate (original and amended). Under the 
law, the Appellants herein are entitled to get their Shari shares as per their 
entitlement and the trial Court while revoking the original certificate of 
succession has very rightly held as under: 
C.A.No.288/13 
4
 
 
“ I heard arguments advanced by the parties in support and 
against the application and I also went through the record of 
succession certificate No. 35/2006 alongwith present 
application. The objection raised by the contesting 
respondents were just about time limitation of filing of this 
application. Other objections were about affidavit of 
applicant that same are not genuine and further allegation 
raised that the applicants both female having no knowledge 
and this application has been filed in connivance of husband 
of one of the applicants. It is alleged that name of deceased 
has not been mentioned correctly. The whole objections 
raised having no weight to discard the legal entitlement of 
the applicants as legal heirs or protect the wrongful act of 
respondent No. 1. The respondent badly failed to show that 
on what account he obtained cash amount of deceased 
without giving the share of other legal heirs. The question 
relating whether this application is time barred in this regard 
it is settled principle of law that no time limit will be counted 
if the action found to be result of fraud of misrepresentation 
and in such situation or case it is held by the honorable apex 
courts that time runs from the date of knowledge. So 
objection about time limitation is discarded. Previous record 
fully shows that respondent No. 1 Sultan Mehmood 
committed fraud by concealment of fact not mentioned in his 
application and in ex-parte evidence that the deceased has 
also other legal heirs. As sufficient evidence available on 
record that all legal heirs of deceased Haji Gul Hassan 
Sheikh 
are 
entitled 
for 
their 
shares 
according 
to 
Muhammadan law and Islamic Sharia so I have no hesitation 
to accept this application for revocation of succession 
certificate. From the record it is also revealed that surety 
namely Hassan Mahmood s/o Sultan Mahmood and 
Muhammad Ismail s/o Ghulam Dastagir have also taken 
back (release) their surety after completion of three years  
still according to their affidavit filed at the time of filing 
surety they have taken fully responsibility that in case of 
fraud and misrepresentation they are liable to pay the amount 
for which they stood surety and on the basis of same 
undertaking that are under obligation to pay the amount in 
case the respondent No. 1 failed to pay the amount to the all 
legal heirs surviving according to Sharia Fithwa. Murasallah 
be sent to revenue authority/ Tehsildar Quetta for report 
within four-days alongwith copy of Fard and affidavit of 
surety available on the record for attachment of property of 
sureties till recovery of amount or otherwise for recovery of 
process of sale of attached property according to law. The 
applicants further directed to file Sharia Fithwa the same 
must be verified and appear in person while applying for 
succession certificate. Application disposed off in this 
manner”. 
 
C.A.No.288/13 
5
 
 
5. 
 
Perusal of the impugned judgment would reflect that the 
same instead of dealing with the substantial question of law, is based on 
mere technicalities. The facts which prevailed with the High Court were (i) 
the affidavits of Respondent No. 1 and his witnesses, (ii) no response by 
the Appellants for more than a period of 3 ½ years inspite of publication in 
a newspaper of wide circulation (iii) the amount in question was 
withdrawn by the Respondent No. 1 long before and fourthly the liability 
of the sureties was also discharged after a lapse of three years and for the 
above reasons asked the Appellants to approach the civil Court for 
redressal of their grievances, if any. 
 
 
The cardinal   principle of Mohammadan law is that the 
inheritance of a person opens the moment he dies and all the legal heirs 
become owners to the extent of their respective shares there and then by 
the dint of settled law. Sanction of inheritance mutation, issuance of 
succession certificate etc. are the procedural matters regulated by the 
procedural laws just to make the records in order and also for fiscal 
purposes. Similarly law of limitation provides a specific period to avail a 
remedy provided under the law by way of filing suit, preferring appeal and 
making any application and if the same is filed/preferred or made beyond 
the prescribed period of time as provided in the schedule, subject to certain 
provisions of law, has to be dismissed but said dismissal cannot take away 
the right of that person as was held by this Court in the case of Pervaiz 
Akhtar and another versus The Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi 
and four others (1990 PSC 1109). It is also settled law of the land that 
technicalities should not hamper the administration and dispensation of 
justice. Whenever it is possible to grant relief under the law, then 
C.A.No.288/13 
6
 
 
technicalities in the way of administration of justice should be avoided to 
the possible extent by remaining within the domain of law. When we look 
into the facts and circumstances of the present case before us, it becomes 
clear that no statutory period of limitation is provided for grant of any 
succession certificate under Section 372 or its revocation under Section 
383 of the Succession Act, 1925. When no further intricate question of law 
of inheritance was there to be resolved by any competent Court of law, 
proceedings under the Succession Act, 1925 were very much competent 
irrespective of efflux of time. 
 
 
It is established on the record that the original certificate was 
obtained by Respondent No. 1 by practicing fraud with the Court and the 
Appellants on 13.11.2006 and the Appellants asked for revocation of said 
certificate after a period of more than 3 ½  years when they got knowledge 
of the same. As discussed above that no statutory time frame has been 
provided under Limitation Act, 1908 for asking for issuance of or 
revocation of succession certificate but even then it has to be availed 
within a reasonable time. If at all we put any embargo/ clog of limitation 
then at the most that can be dealt with under Article 181 of Limitation Act, 
1908 which provides a period of three years to ask for any such relief. 
Settled law of the land in such like situations is that the period of limitation 
would start running from the date of knowledge. While looking in this 
perspective, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, the presumption 
would be that the Appellants being poor illiterate ladies had no knowledge 
of the original succession certificate and after getting knowledge of the 
same filed application for revocation of succession certificate. 
C.A.No.288/13 
7
 
 
6. 
 
The application so filed by the Appellants for revocation of 
the succession certificate was also held to have been incompetently filed as 
the application was only signed by the counsel and the counsel was also 
authorized by Appellant No. 1 i.e. Mst. Zohra Bibi only and Mst. Samina 
Bibi had not signed the power of attorney of the counsel. Again this view 
of the High Court is based on hyper technicality especially in the facts and 
circumstances of the case in hand. The established law is that Advocate/ 
Pleader can sign the pleadings on behalf of the party and he is normally 
authorized by the party while signing the power of attorney in this behalf 
and the provisions of Order III of the CPC in this regard are very much 
clear. The record of the proceedings clarifies the fact that the Appellant 
No. 1 was properly represented as she had signed the power of attorney of 
the counsel and let’s presume for a while that Respondent No. 2 was not 
properly represented, whether this alone would disentitle her to get her 
share in the legacy left by her father. Answer to this question would be a 
simple “No”. Under the law it is not necessary that each and every legal 
heir should be properly represented and appear before the Court to get a 
succession certificate. The Court on receiving such application has to 
issue/ grant succession certificate in favor of all the legal heirs by 
considering and determining their respective shares by complying with the 
procedural requirements of law in this regard. So, the decision of High 
Court in this regard is sheer violation of the law and cannot be maintained. 
7. 
 
Yet another aspect of the case, as was held by the High 
Court, would also require our attention that after the lapse of such a long 
time the better course for the Appellants was to approach the Civil Court. 
Yes; this approach of the High Court would have been a valid one if there 
C.A.No.288/13 
8
 
 
had some dispute regarding status and relationship of the parties inter-se. 
But in this case, there is no such dispute. There are two distinct groups of 
the legal heirs of the deceased. Appellants being the legal heirs from one 
wife and the Respondents from the other wife. Their complicity can be 
adjudged from the fact that Respondents No. 2 to 4 the real sisters of 
Respondent No. 1 have joined hands with Respondent No. 1 by alleging to 
have received their share by supporting the appeal of Respondent No. 1 
before the High Court and the two poor ladies from the other wife of 
propositus i.e. the Appellants were left without any relief who also happen 
to be their step sisters. (By keeping in mind the conduct of Respondent No. 
1, we also doubt the satisfaction of claim of Respondent No. 2 to 4). So, 
we in the peculiar circumstances of the case cannot send the parties 
especially the two Appellants for yet another round of litigation for a 
matter which require no further adjudication except the discharge of 
liability by Respondent No. 1 as he alongwith his son had given an 
undertaking to satisfy the claims of any other legal heir, if came forward. 
So, we endorse the procedure adopted by the trial court for the recovery of 
said amount with the direction that the needful be done within a period of 
two months positively after the receipt of this judgment and a compliance 
report be also forwarded to the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this 
Court. 
8. 
 
Since it has been established on the record that Respondent 
No. 1 had verified a false statement, rather concealed the true facts before 
the Court regarding actual legal heirs of the deceased propositus and thus 
apparently has committed fraud with the Court and the parties so we 
cannot shut our eyes to this very fact and we, therefore, direct the trial 
C.A.No.288/13 
9
 
 
Court to proceed against the Respondent No. 1 under Section 198 PPC as 
required by Section 372 (2) of the Succession Act, 1925. 
9. 
 
In view of the above discussion this appeal is allowed in 
above terms with costs to be borne by Respondent No. 1 of the entire 
litigation for the reasons mentioned above.  
 
Judge  
 
 
 
Judge 
Bench-III 
Islamabad 
6th December, 2017 
Zia* 
 
 
 
Approved for Reporting. 
    
