Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ISHTIAQ VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD IQBALHonorable Justice Ajmal MianN.M.Shaikh,MA. Rafique Khan
1988 M L D 948
1988 M L D 948
[Karachi]
Before Ajmal Mian and Allah Dino G. Memon, JJ
MUHAMMAD ISHTIAQ and 4 others‑‑Appellants
versus
MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑Respondent
High Court Appeal No. 85 of 1985, decided on 27th January, 1988.
Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)‑‑--
‑‑‑S. 278‑‑Appeal against preliminary decree in administration suit‑‑Order of Court indicating that counsel for appellants had given his consent to the passing of preliminary decree‑‑Counsel claiming that such consent was given on condition that house which was in the names of respondent should have been included, as a part of the estate of the deceased as money was provided by him for construction of same‑‑Appellants, enumerating other properties in the name of other legal heirs which were treated as part of estate of deceased‑‑Administrator having submitted his report which was to be taken up by Court appellants could agitate that house in the name of respondent, in fact belonged to deceased, by filing objections to that report‑‑Appellants after decision of Court on that point, could file appeal against final judgment, if necessary.
N.M.Shaikh for Appellants.
MA. Rafique Khan for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 27th January, 1988.
JUDGMENT
AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑This appeal is directed against the preliminary decree dated 15‑10‑1985 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No.710 of 1984, which was a suit for administration in respect of the cash and immovable property belonging to deceased Gul Abbas. The present appellants were the defendants in the above suit. Though the order indicates that the learned counsel for the appellants had given his consent to the passing of the preliminary decree but his submission is that the above consent was given on the condition that the house which was in the name of the respondent should have been included as a part of the estate of the deceased as the money was provided by him for the construction. It is also the case of the appellants that there are number of other properties namely, Plots etc., which are in the names of the other legal heirs and which are treated as the part of the estate of the deceased.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent points out that the Administrat4 has submitted his report which is to be taken up by the learned Single Judge, in our view, it is still open to the appellants to agitate the question that the above on the above point the appellants can file appeal against the final judgment.
With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.
AA/M‑560/K. Order accordingly.