P L D 2025 Balochistan 21
Before Gul Hassan Tareen, J
SHAZIA JAFFAR and 4 others ---Appellants
Versus
GENERAL PUBLIC and 2 others ---Respondents
Succession Appeal No. 01 of 2023, decided on 13th November, 2023.
(a) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) ---
----Ss. 265 & 272---Application for grant of Letter of Administration--- Term "District
Delegate" ---High Court may appoint such judicial officer within any district to act for the
District Judge as Delegates to grant Letter of Administration in non -contentious case under
S. 265 subsection (1) of the Succession Act, 1925; Judicial Officers so appointed are called
"District Delegates".
(b) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) ---
----Ss. 286, Explanation & 272---Application for grant of Letter of Administration---Term 'contention'---Term 'contention is defined in Explanation of S. 286 of Succession Act, 1925,
which (contention) means the appearance of any one in person, or by his recognized agent, or
by a pleader duly appointed to act on his behalf, to oppose the proceeding.
(c) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) ---
----Ss. 265, 272, 286 & 288---Application for grant of Letter of Administration--- Contentious
case---District Delegate, powers of ---Scope ---Contention (objection) raised in the
application ---Scope and effect ---Succession appeal was filed against the order passed by the
District Delegate whereby the application made by the respondent for grant of Letter of
Administration was allowed ---Objection/contention of the appellants was that the respondent
had divorced the deceased about 35 years back; as such, applic ation made for grant of Letter
of Administration was unjustified and mala fide ---Validity ---Under S. 272 of the Succession
Act, 1925, the District Delegate may grant Letter of Administration in an application for grant of the same, in which there is no contention---In the present case, there was contention of the appellant, as such, the District Delegate could not have granted Letter of Administration under S. 286 of the Succession Act, 1925---District Delegate can only deal with non- contentious matter; as soon as, caveat is entered and proceeding becomes
contentious, he loses his jurisdiction and therefore, cannot grant Letter of Administration ---
In contentious cases, S. 288 of the Succession Act, 1925, provides procedure which prescribes two alternatives in contentious cases ---District Delegate may either return the
petition to the applicant in order that the same may be presented to the District Judge ,or the District Delegate may impound the petition and, in that case, he shall himself send the same to the District Judge ---Section 288 of the Succession Act, 1925, firstly, applies to all
contentious cases, and secondly in doubtful cases, but in either case, the District Delegate has no jurisdiction to frame issues and proceed with the proceedings after contest ---In the
present case, appellants opposed the grant of Letter of Administration to the respondent with the contention that the deceased/lady was divorced and, therefore, respondent could not be granted Letter of Administration ---District Delegate on su bmission of such contention ought
to have, either returned the application to the respondent for presentation to the District Judge or should have by himself sent the same to the District Judge ---District Delegate
instead of doing that, proceeded to frame issues and granted the Letter of Administration and exercised jurisdiction of District Judge which was not vested in him under the said provision---Thus, impugned order was simply void and liable to be set aside ---District Delegate ought
to have taken noti ce of S. 288 of the Succession Act, 1925, however, he appeared to have
overlooked the mandatory provision of S. 288 of the Succession Act, 1925---High Court set -
aside the impugned order passed by the District Delegate (Civil Judge) in application of Letter of Administration and matter was remanded to the District Delegate with direction to deal with the said application strictly in accordance with S. 288 of the Succession Act, 1925---
Appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Jameel Ahmed Khan Babai for Appellants.
Muhammad Nawaz Khan Tareen for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Date of hearing: 6th November, 2023.
JUDGMENT
GUL HASSAN TAREEN J. ---This Succession Appeal, filed under section 299, the
Succession Act, 1925 ('Act, 1925'), assails order dated 31 August, 2023 of the learned Civil
Judge, Loralai, whereby the amended application made by the respondent No.2 for grant of letter of administration was allowed.
2. Facts, in brief, are that, respondent No.2 made an amended application before the
learned Civil Judge, Loralai ('District Delegate') for grant of letter of administration of the
house of his wife, deceased Fozia Jaffar. Respondent No.2 had pleaded that after death of his
wife, he approached to the Revenue Authority Loralai for transfer of the share of his deceased wife, where he was advised to get letter of administration. He finally prayed for grant of letter of administration in respect of the property of the deceased Fozia Jaffar.
3. The petitioners submitted contention before the District Delegate and raised objection
that, respondent No.3 had divorced the deceased Fozia Jaffar about 35 years back; as such,
application made for grant of letter of administration is mala fide and they have instituted a
Civil Suit which is pending adjudication. On such pleadings, the District Delegate framed
following issues:
1. Whether the applicant had divorced Fozia Jaffar (late) vide notice dated 11.05.1989,
therefore, he is not entitled for issuance of letter of administration in his favour?
2. Whether the applicant is entitled for the relief claimed for?
After framing of issues, the District Delegate granted letter of administration to the
respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 31 August, 2023.
4. I have heard Mr. Jameel Ahmed Khan Babai, learned advocate for the appellants and
Mr. Nawaz Khan Tareen, learned advocate for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and have gone through record of the case.
5. The High Court may appoint such judicial officer within any district to act for the
District Judge as Delegates to grant letter of administration in non -contentious case under
section 265 subsection (1) of the Act, 1925. Judicial Officers so appointed are called 'District Delegates'. Under section 272, the Act, 1925, the District Delegate may grant letter of administration in an application in which there is no contention. In the present case, there was contention of the appellant, as such, the District Delegate could have not granted letter of administration under section 286, the Act, 1925. The term 'contention' is defined in Explanation of section 286, which reads as under:
"Explanation: "contention" means the appearance of any one in person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader duly appointed to act on his behalf, to oppose the proceeding."
A District Delegate can only deal with non- contentious matter, as soon as, caveat is
entered and proceeding becomes contentious, he loses his jurisdiction and therefore, cannot grant letter of administration. In contentious cases, section 288, the Act, 1925 provides procedure which is to be adopted by a District Delegate. section 288 reads as under:
"288. Procedure where there is contention or District Delegate thinks probate or letter of administration should be refused in his Court. In every case in which there is contention, or the District Delegate is of opinion that the probate or letters of administration should be refused in his Court, the petition, with any documents which may have been filed therewith, shall be returned to the person by whom the application was made, in order that the same may be presented to the District Judge,
unless the District Delegate thinks it necessary, for the purposes of justice, to
impound the same, which he is hereby authorized to do; and, in that case, the same shall be sent by him to the District Judge."
6. The provision of section 288, prescribes two alternatives in contentious cases. The
District Delegate may either return the petition to the applicant in order that the same may be presented to the District Judge or the District Delegate may impound the petition and, in that case, he shall himself sent the same to the District Judge. Section 288, the Act, 1925, firstly applies to all contentious cases and secondly, in doubtful cases, but in either case, the District Delegate has no jurisdiction to frame issues and proceed with the proceeding after
contest. In the instant case, appellants submitted their common contention in which they
opposed the grant of letter of administration to the respondent No.2 that, the deceased Fozia
was divorced and, therefore, respondent No.2 could not be granted letter of administration. The learned District Delegate on submission of such contention ought to have, either returned the application to the respondent No.2 for its presentation to the District Judge or by
himself send the same to the District Judge. The learned District Delegate instead of doing
that, proceeded to frame issues and granted the letter of administration and exercised
jurisdiction of District Judge which was not vested in him under the aforementioned
provision. The impugned order is simply void and liable to setting aside. The learned District
Delegate ought to have taken notice of section 288, the Act, 1925 under Article 112(1)(a),
the Qanun- e-Shahadat Order, 1984, however, he appears to have overlooked the mandatory
provision of section 288, the Act, 1925.
In view of above, the impugned order dated 31 August, 2023 of the learned District
Delegate/Civil Judge, Bori at Loralai in Application No. 01/2023 is set aside and matter is remanded back to the District Delegate with direction to dealt with the application strictly in
accordance with the section 288, the Succession Act, 1925.
MQ/1/Bal. Case remanded.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.