Joint Bank account's inheritance in Pakistan. / case law urdu /What happens to a joint account when one owner dies?/ Joint Bank account's inheritance form

What happens to a joint account when one owner dies?

what if i put my inheritance money into a joint account?

Do joint account go though probate ?

Joint bank account inheritance .

Answer : It is new case law from High couret of Pakistan. in which total amount was distributed in legal heirs and not to the other  survivor holder . case detail in urdu availabe on end of this article.

What Happens to a Joint Account When One Owner Dies?

2024 C L C 1288

[Lahore]

Before Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, J

Dr. ASMA NIGHAT ZAIDI and others----Petitioners

Versus

Syeda SAFOORA BEGUM and others----Respondents

Writ Petition No.7073 of 2022, heard on 9th May, 2023.

(a) Islamic law---

----Inheritance---Tarka---Scope---Legal heirs, entitlement of----All moveable and immoveable properties owned and possessed by the deceased at the time of death, including property which is due to the deceased from any other person (though not received by the deceased during his life time, but the deceased was legally entitled to raise a claim in respect of the same in his life time), and distributable among his legal heirs as per their respective shares is called Tarka---Succession to the estate of a Muslim under the Muhammadan Law shall open the moment a person departs from this world and rest of the proceedings are mere formalities---Legal heirs, as per the Shariah, who are alive at that time, shall be entitled to inherit the estate.

(b) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)---

----S. 375---Succession certificate----Bank account of the deceased---Bank account bearing characteristic of "either or survivor"---Legal heirs, entitlement of---Scope---Petitioner /widow was aggrieved of concurrent judgments by which legal heirs, besides her, were also held entitled to inherit an amount left in joint account opened by she and her husband (deceased)---Validity---Bank Account opening application / form which bears characteristic of "either or survivor", neither gives any authority to the Bank to disburse the available amount to the survivor of the joint account holder nor makes the survivor sole owner of the amount available in joint account---Said arrangement also does not get support from Muhammadan Law, especially when the Courts below after appreciating the evidence brought on record have concurrently observed that it was not established that petitioner (wife /widow of the deceased ) had any own source of income rather she was dependent upon her husband and the joint account was opened in the air of confidence for sake of domestic liabilities---Moreover, it was not stipulated in the application form that the survivor was unconditionally entitled to withdraw any amount from the said account after the death of co-account holder without adopting the due process of law---Admittedly, the amount available in the joint account was not gifted to petitioner /widow, thus, she retained no title over the same---Even otherwise, under the law with the death of one of the account holders of a joint account any authorization/authority given by the deceased co-account holder stands automatically revoked and even a validly authorized person is denuded of such power after death of the principal as all assets of the deceased by operation of law stand vested in the ownership of legal heirs of the deceased and the Bank or the joint account holder are not empowered to unilaterally operate the account or withdraw any amount until and unless as per law a declaration regarding succession or letter of administration or probate is issued by the Court of competent jurisdiction---Even in nomination cases, nominee is not entitled to receive the entire amount of deceased---Such nomination would neither be a will nor a gift nor a trust---It would merely be a mandate, the validity of which would expire with death and the amount available in the account would be undisposed estate of the deceased---Such nomination cannot override the provisions of Islamic Law of Inheritance, therefore, no legal heir could be deprived from receiving their respective share---Both the Courts below had rightly appreciated the legal perspective of the matter and impugned decisions were supported by valid lawful reasons---Petitioners had failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of Courts below, hence no interference was warranted in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction---Constitutional petition, being meritless, was dismissed.

       Ch. Habibullah v. Sheikhupura Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. PLD 1987 SC 53; Malik Safdar Ali Khan and another v. Public-at-Large and others 2004 SCMR 1219; Syed Shah Pir Mian Kazmi v. Mst. Nelofer (Widow) and others 2012 CLD 850 and Dubai Islamic Bank Pakistan and others v. Mst. Saima Yasin and others 2020 CLD 518 ref.

       Raja Muhammad Riaz Satti for Petitioners.

       Syed Ali Abbas Sherazi for Respondents.

2024 C L C 1288

اس فیصلے کے اہم نکات درج ذیل ہیں:

1. وراثت کی تقسیم: اسلامی قانون کے تحت، متوفی کی تمام متحرک اور غیر متحرک جائیدادیں ان کے قانونی وارثین میں ان کے حصے کے مطابق تقسیم کی جاتی ہیں، خواہ وہ جائیداد متوفی کو زندگی میں ملے یا نہیں۔

2. مشترکہ بینک اکاؤنٹ: اگر اکاؤنٹ میں "either or survivor" کی خصوصیت ہو، تو اس کا مطلب یہ نہیں کہ اکاؤنٹ میں موجود رقم صرف زندہ شخص کے قبضے میں آ جائے گی۔ اس طرح کا انتظام اسلامی وراثت کے قانون کے خلاف ہے اور اس سے قانونی وارثین کے حقوق متاثر نہیں ہوتے۔

3. وراثت کی قانونی حیثیت: جب ایک شخص کا انتقال ہو جاتا ہے، تو اس کے تمام اثاثے اس کے قانونی وارثین کے ملکیت میں آ جاتے ہیں۔ بینک اکاؤنٹ میں موجود رقم بھی ان قوانین کے تابع ہوتی ہے۔

4. شریعت اور قانونی عمل: مشترکہ اکاؤنٹ کے تحت "survivor" کو رقم نکالنے کا کوئی غیر مشروط اختیار نہیں دیا جا سکتا۔ اس کے لیے قانونی طریقہ کار کی ضرورت ہوتی ہے، جیسے کہ قانونی سرٹیفکیٹ یا پراویٹ کا اجازت نامہ۔

5. وراثتی حقوق کی پامالی نہیں ہو سکتی: بینک اکاؤنٹ میں نامزدگی صرف ایک ہدایت ہوتی ہے جو متوفی کے بعد ختم ہو جاتی ہے۔ یہ وراثت کے اسلامی قانون پر اثر انداز نہیں ہو سکتی۔

6. مقدمے کا نتیجہ: عدالت نے درخواست گزار کے دعوے کو مسترد کر دیا کیونکہ وہ ثابت نہیں کر سکے کہ انہیں قانونی طور پر مشترکہ اکاؤنٹ کی رقم پر کوئی حق تھا۔

اس فیصلے میں اسلامی وراثت کے اصولوں کو مقدم رکھا گیا ہے اور اس بات کو واضح کیا گیا ہے کہ بینک اکاؤنٹس میں موجود رقم کو قانونی طریقے سے تقسیم کیا جانا چاہیے۔

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.

Damages case against railway / how to damages case against railway in Pakistan.

Damages case against railway .

how to damages case against railway in Pakistan.

this case law of high court help out how can file case against railway in Pakistan.

2024 C L C 1293

[Balochistan]

Before Gul Hassan Tareen, J

DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, through Authority/Authorized Officer----Petitioner

Versus

TAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN----Respondent

Civil Revision No.283 of 2020, decided on 1st August, 2022.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----Ss.79 & O. XXVII, R. 2---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 174---Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.13---Suit for recovery of damages---Suit against Federal Government---Non-impleading of Federal Government---Court fee, return of---Question of law, determining of---Principle---Respondent / plaintiff sought recovery of value of his consignment destroyed due to negligence of government officials---Suit was concurrently decreed in favour of respondent / plaintiff by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court---Contention of petitioner / government was that Federal Government was not impleaded as party to proceedings---Validity--- Objection under S. 79, C.P.C., was raised in its memorandum of appeal, nonetheless, Lower Appellate Court overlooked the objection---Pure question of law which can be decided without any evidence can be raised at any stage of proceedings---By ignoring mandatory statutory provisions, subordinate Court committed material illegality and irregularity which went to the root of the suit---High Court set aside judgments passed by two Courts below and remanded the matter to Trial Court for trial afresh after impleading Federal Government as party in accordance with the provisions of S. 79 read with O. XXVII, C.P.C. and Art. 174 of the Constitution---High Court directed the office to issue relevant certificate to petitioner / government for return of court fee stamps as per S. 13 of Court Fees Act, 1870---Revision was allowed accordingly.

 

       Province of Punjab through Secretary Excise and Taxation Department Lahore and others 2021 SCMR 305 and Government of Balochistan CWPP&H Department and others v. Nawabzada Mir Tariq Hussain Magsi 2010 SCMR 115 ref.

       Divisional Forest Officer, Larkana and 3 others v. Ghulam Haier and 8 others PLD 2007 Kar. 392 and Samar Gul v. Mohabat Khan 2000 SCMR 974 rel.

       Mushtaq Anjum Rajput for Petitioner.

       Moula Dad Barrech for Respondent.

 

## کیس کا خلاصہ: ڈویژنل سپرنٹنڈنٹ پاکستان ریلوے بمقابلہ تاج محمد خان

**کیس کا مرکزی مسئلہ:**

یہ کیس ایک اہم قانونی سوال پر مرکوز تھا: جب کسی سرکاری ادارے (مثلاً پاکستان ریلوے) کے خلاف کوئی مقدمہ دائر کیا جائے تو کیا اس مقدمے میں حکومت کو بھی فریق بنانا ضروری ہے؟ 

**کیس کی تفصیل:**

* **مقدمے کا موضوع:** تاج محمد خان نے پاکستان ریلوے کے خلاف اپنی ایک کنسائنمنٹ کے نقصان کے عوض نقصان کا دعویٰ کیا تھا۔

* **نچلی عدالتوں کا فیصلہ:** دونوں ہی نچلی عدالتوں (ٹرائل کورٹ اور اپیلٹ کورٹ) نے تاج محمد خان کے حق میں فیصلہ سنایا۔

* **اپیل:** پاکستان ریلوے نے ہائی کورٹ میں اپیل دائر کی اور یہ دلیل دی کہ حکومت کو اس مقدمے میں فریق نہیں بنایا گیا تھا، جو کہ ایک اہم قانونی کوتاہی تھی۔

* **ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ:**

    * ہائی کورٹ نے پاکستان ریلوے کی اپیل منظور کی۔

    * عدالت نے یہ فیصلہ دیا کہ حکومت کو اس مقدمے میں فریق بنانا ضروری تھا۔

    * نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلے کو منسوخ کر دیا گیا۔

    * کیس کو دوبارہ ٹرائل کورٹ میں بھیج دیا گیا تاکہ حکومت کو فریق بنا کر دوبارہ سماعت کی جا سکے۔

    * پاکستان ریلوے کو ادا کردہ کورٹ فیس واپس کرنے کا حکم دیا گیا۔

**اہم قانونی نکات:**

* **ضروری فریق:** جب کسی مقدمے میں کسی سرکاری ادارے کے خلاف دعویٰ کیا جائے تو حکومت کو بھی مقدمے کا فریق بنانا ضروری ہے۔

* **عدالتی کارروائی:** عدالتی کارروائی میں تمام متعلقہ فریقین کو سنا جانا ضروری ہے۔

* **ہائی کورٹ کی طاقت:** ہائی کورٹ نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلوں کی جائزہ لینے اور ان میں ترمیم کرنے کی اختیار رکھتی ہے۔

**اس کیس کا نتیجہ:**

اس کیس نے یہ واضح کر دیا کہ جب کسی سرکاری ادارے کے خلاف مقدمہ دائر کیا جائے تو حکومت کو بھی مقدمے کا فریق بنانا ضروری ہے۔ یہ فیصلہ مستقبل میں اسی طرح کے مقدمات میں ایک اہم پیش رو ثابت ہوگا۔

**سادہ الفاظ میں:**

یہ کیس اس بات کے بارے میں تھا کہ جب کسی سرکاری ادارے (جیسے پاکستان ریلوے) سے نقصان ہوتا ہے اور کوئی شخص اس کے خلاف مقدمہ دائر کرتا ہے تو صرف اس ادارے کو ہی مقدمے میں نہیں بلایا جا سکتا بلکہ حکومت کو بھی مقدمے میں شامل کرنا پڑتا ہے۔ کیونکہ یہ سرکاری ادارہ حکومت کی نمائندگی کرتا ہے۔

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.

Residential building can't use as hostel or hotel / case law in Urdu / Hostel rules.

Residential building can't use as hostel or hotel 

2024 C L C 1299

[Islamabad]

Before Aamer Farooq, CJ

MAEMONA AZHAR and others----Petitioners

Versus

CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman and others----Respondents

Writ Petition No.3272 of 2016, decided on 17th May, 2024.

(a) Islamabad Capital Territory Residential Sectors Zoning (Building Control) Regulations, 2020---

----Regln. 2.17---Ban on non-confirming use---Residential plot, use of---Residential plots are authorized to be used for residential occupancy by one or more families---Renting out individual rooms to students on shared accommodation basis, does not fulfill criteria for residential use---Use of "Residential Building" as hostels or lodging houses or guest houses has been clearly and specifically excluded.

(b) Capital Development Authority Ordinance (XXIII of 1960)---

----S.49C---Islamabad Capital Territory Residential Sectors Zoning (Building Control) Regulations, 2020, Regln. 2.17---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 24 & 199---Use of building---Non-confirming use of building---Notice issued by Capital Development Authority challenged by way of writ petition---Petitioners were using their residential buildings as hostels, lodges or guest houses---Respondent / Capital Development Authority after issuing show cause notices initiated proceedings against petitioners by imposing fines and sealing of their properties---Validity---Powers conferred upon respondent / Authority by legislature in Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960, were justified by the purpose for which those had been conferred---There was no question of competence of Capital Development Authority or of vires of Islamabad Capital Territory Residential Sectors Zoning (Building Control) Regulations, 2020, where the Authority had exercised its powers in accordance with law and had only done so in furtherance of its mandate as the prescribed regulator---Notices issued in compliance with the procedure could not be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction as there was no adverse action taken nor order was issued whereby questions of vires and infringement of rights could arise---Issuance of show cause notice was merely a procedural requirement to provide time and an opportunity of being heard---Petitioners should have responded to notices of non-conforming use and should have stated their case before the Authority instead of skipping the prescribed procedure and directly invoking constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Notices were issued in compliance with prescribed procedure and were intra vires and thus could not be challenged through constitutional petition---Provisions of Islamabad Capital Territory Residential Sectors Zoning (Building Control) Regulations, 2020, were intra vires the Constitution and did not infringe fundamental rights---Authority had followed prescribed procedure in letter and spirit, therefore, action of sealing premises could not be challenged on grounds of vires---High Court declined to interfere in the matter as the Authority was well within its powers while determining certain use of a premises to be non-conforming under Islamabad Capital Territory Residential Sectors Zoning (Building Control) Regulations, 2020---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

       Col. (R.) Javed Agha and 31 others v. Arshad Mahmud and 4 others 2017 MLD 627; Mrs. Shamshad Butt v. Deputy Commissioner CDA, Islamabad and 3 others 2023 CLC 304 and Lahore Development Authority through D.V. and others v. Imrana Tiwana and others 2015 SCMR 1739 rel.

       Ms. Natalya Kamal, Dr. G.M. Chaudhry, Raja Muhammad Shafait Abbasi, Awais Haider Malik, Mir Afzal Malik, Zohaib Hassan Gondal, Syed Kazim Raza Naqvi, Safraz Hussain, Rashid Hafeez, Shafiq-ur-Rehman Dab, Malik Huzaifa, Zia ul Haq, Khurram Ibrahim Baig for Petitioners (in their respective writ petitions).

       Shaharyar Tariq, Ch. Haseeb Muhammad (L.A.), CDA, Muhammad Taimoor Khan, Mushtaq Ahmed Awan, Muhammad Akram Shaheen, Syed Ghulam Mustafa, G. Shabbir Akbar, Jam Mati Ullah Bobra, Uzma Aslam Mughal, Zafar Hussain Ahmed, Khurram Mehmood Qureshi, Faisal Bin Khurshid, Ch. Muhammad Asif Khan, Ch. Aziz ur Rehman Zia, Surriya Marriam Khaleeq, Amir Latif Gill, Wasim Abid, Husnain Haider Thaheem, Ms. Mahnoor, Sajida Khanum, Babar Saeed Butt, Sajid Mehmood Abbasi, Naveed Akhtar Joiya, Kalsoom Rafique, Ms. Hadiya Tayyaba, Syed Masood Hussain, Muhammad Anwar Dar, Samar Anwar Dar, Mian Haseeb Ali Bhatti, Usman Ahmad Ranjha, M. Naeem Siddique Bhatti, Muhammad Akhtar Awan, Ms. Mehwish Riffat and Faisal Nawaz for Respondents.

       Nisar Ali Shah, D.D. (BCS), CDA.

       Assisted by: Ms. Maheen Zeeshan (Law Clerk).

 

اہم نکات:

1. غیر متوافق استعمال:

مدعیان نے اپنے رہائشی عمارات کو ہوسٹل یا لاج کے طور پر استعمال کیا، جو کہ اسلام آباد کیپیٹل ٹیریٹری رہائشی سیکٹرز زوننگ (عمارتوں کے کنٹرول) ریگولیشنز 2020 کے تحت غیر قانونی تھا۔

2. کیپٹل ڈویلپمنٹ اتھارٹی کی کارروائی:

اتھارٹی نے شوکاز نوٹس جاری کیے اور غیر قانونی استعمال پر فائنز عائد کیے، ساتھ ہی پراپرٹیز کو سیل کیا۔

3. آئینی درخواست:

مدعیان نے غیر قانونی کارروائی کو چیلنج کرنے کے لیے آئینی درخواست دائر کی، تاہم عدالت نے اس درخواست کو مسترد کرتے ہوئے کیپٹل ڈویلپمنٹ اتھارٹی کی کارروائی کو درست قرار دیا۔

4. قانونی دائرہ اختیار:

عدالت نے کہا کہ کیپٹل ڈویلپمنٹ اتھارٹی نے اپنے قانونی اختیارات کا استعمال کرتے ہوئے کارروائی کی تھی اور مدعیان کو پہلے شوکاز نوٹس کا جواب دینا چاہیے تھا۔

5. شوکاز نوٹس کی قانونی حیثیت:

عدالت نے شوکاز نوٹس کو ایک ضروری قانونی عمل قرار دیا، جس کا مقصد مدعیان کو اپنی پوزیشن پیش کرنے کا موقع دینا تھا۔

6. نتیجہ:

ہائی کورٹ نے فیصلہ دیا کہ اتھارٹی کی کارروائی قانون کے مطابق تھی اور مدعیان کی آئینی درخواست کو مسترد کر دیا۔

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.