2002 PLP 1245 (CLD)
SADIQ ALI and 2 others ‑‑‑ Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1245 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ |
| Parties | SADIQ ALI and 2 others ‑‑‑ Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1245 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1245 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1245 (CLD) (SADIQ ALI and 2 others ‑‑‑ Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iftikhar Ullah Malik for Appellants.
- Mian Muhammad Qamar‑uz‑Zaman for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th May, 2002
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 19(7) & 22‑‑‑Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882). S.58(f)‑‑‑Investigation of claim and objection, whether property was mortgaged or not‑‑‑Mortgage by deposit of title deeds‑‑‑Bank claiming to be mortgagee of three properties by deposit of title deeds was having original title deed in respect of one property‑‑‑Original title deeds in respect of other two properties were with appellants claiming to be bona fide purchasers thereof for valuable consideration‑‑ Contention of Bank was that judgment‑debtor had submitted to Bank an affidavit alongwith attested copies of title deeds and a power of attorney in respect of other two properties, thus, on their basis mortgage by deposit of title deeds stood created in favour of Bank‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Such contention was legally not well‑founded ‑‑‑Bank was required to obtain original title deeds‑‑‑Title deeds were not lost as had been stated by judgment‑debtor to Bank‑‑‑Bank had been defrauded by judgment‑debtor‑‑Bank had to bear the consequences of such fraud and not the appellants, who were bona fide purchasers of two properties for valuable consideration and also holding original title deeds thereof‑‑ Bank could assert its security rights as mortgagee in respect of only one property‑‑‑High Court accepted appellants' appeal in respect of other two properties by allowing his objection petition to that extent.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.‑‑‑The contentions of learned counsel for the appellants have been noted in the order, dated 15‑10‑2001. The same, therefore, need not be repeated. Today, learned counsel for the respondent‑Bank has conceded that the respondent‑Bank is in possession of the original title deed, only in respect of property bearing No. B‑VII‑15‑S‑
2. Mool Raj Bagh, Gujranwala. As for the other two properties, although the Bank claims to be a mortgagee by deposit of title deeds, the original deeds are not available with the Bank. The original title deeds in respect of the other properties are with the appellants, who as bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration, acquired title in the same from Nazir Ahmad judgment debtor, who is respondent No.2 in the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the Bank argued that Nazir Ahmad had submitted an affidavit' alongwith attested copies of deed and a power of attorney to the Bank in respect or the remaining two properties. On this basis, it was contended a mortgage by deposit of title deeds stood created in favour of the Bank. This contention is not legally well‑founded. It was for the Bank to obtain the original title deeds. It is obvious that the title deeds were not lost as had been stated by Nazir Ahmad to the Bank. In this view of the matter, it appears the respondent‑Bank was defrauded by Nazir Ahmad. The Bank has to bear the' consequences of such fraud and not the appellant. who is a bona fide purchaser of the properties for valuable consideration and also holds original title deeds of the said properties.
3. In the above circumstances, the Bank can only assert its security rights as mortgagee in respect or Property No. B‑VII‑15‑S‑2, Mool Raj Bagh, Gujranwala. The appeal of Sadiq Ali appellant in respect of the remaining two properties is accepted and as a consequence, his objection petition to the extent of the said two properties is allowed.
4. This appeal partially, succeeds and is disposed of in the above terms. S.A.K./S‑436/L Order accordingly.