Law: Succession Act, 1925

Section: 372

(a) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)--- ----S. 372---Government of Sindh Notification No.FD (SRIII)10 (06)/2006, dated 20-5-2009---Succession certificate---Debts and securities/service benefits-Tarka-Compensation---`Concession'-'Grant'-Group insurance---Benevolent fund---Distribution of service benefits of deceased civil servant---Scope---Legal heirs were entitled to inherit what deceased had left behind him whether movable or immovable including a right of claim which would be available for distribution among the legal heirs as per their legal entitlement---Only which the deceased was owning or possessing as owner and all other claims and rights which the deceased himself was entitled to make during his life time could be distributed among legal heirs---Assets left by the deceased could be distributed among legal heirs as per their entitlement---Tarka would be the absolute property of the deceased and same should be governed by law of inheritance of the deceased---"Concession" "grant" or "compensation" had to be dealt with as per wishes of the giver---Group insurance of the deceased employee did not fall within the definition of "Tarka" and same would not be available for its distribution among the legal heirs but would be dealt as per relevant rules and procedure framed by the employer (government) for such purpose---'Benevolent fund and group insurance' amount would not be part of "Tarka"---Court below had wrongly held the `group insurance amount' to be part of "Tarka"---Compensation to Shaheed officers/officials of Sindh Police was payable to the family of deceased employee---Rights and claims of the deceased which he had during his life time but did not include "Tarka" should include any other amount which was given/paid by the employer---'Compensation' if being paid for Qatl-i-Amd or Qatl-i-Khata of the deceased by the accused would be heritable by all the legal heirs but if an amount was being given by the employer it should not be equated to that of "Diyat/compensation"---No restriction could be put on the right of the choice "giver"…