2007 PLP 1369 (CLD)
DOST MUHAMMAD — Appellant Versus HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1369 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | DOST MUHAMMAD — Appellant Versus HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1369 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1369 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1369 (CLD) (DOST MUHAMMAD — Appellant Versus HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Muhammad Hanif Bokhari for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S.9
Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss.41 & 59 A
Suit for recovery of -loan amount by Bank
Mortgaged property
Applicant as purchaser of property through a court decree claimed to be bona fide purchaser having no knowledge- about mortgage'--Validity
Property being mortgaged, when not redeemed, would always be subject to recovery of loan by enforcing mortgage-- Applicant could not take up plea of bona fide purchaser, even if he had bought property through a court decree-- Amount paid by applicant to transferor was neither towards return of loan amount of Bank nor was paid to Bank
Applicant for commission of any fraud or misrepresentation by transferor might take legal proceedings against him
Property mortgaged for discharge of loan could not be absolved of charge/encumbrance on account of such plea of applicant
Suit was decreed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
One Mst. Kalsoom Akhtar obtained a loan from the respondent/HBFC, for the construction of a house, on plot bearing Khawet No.142, F:hatuni No.165, measuring 6 Marlas situated in Chak No.45/NB, Factory Area, Sargodha and mortgaged the plot as also the construction to be raised. However, she subsequently, sold the said property to Abdul Majeed with the permission of the HBFC, who undertook to pay the debt, with the property, still being mortgaged. Abdul Majeed thereafter sold the disputed house to Mir Badshah Khan, who thereafter made the sale in favour of Dost Muhammad the present appellant, but without any permission from the HBFC. The respondent/HBFC thereafter, brought a suit for the recovery of the amount of loan, due against Abdul Majeed, when the present appellant moved an application to be impleaded as party; the permission was granted; the case was contested by the appellant and the suit has been decreed.
2. The plea taken is, that the appellant is a bona fide purchaser, he had no knowledge about any encumbrance, charge or the mortgage of the said property and therefore, the property which has been purchased by him; through the decree of the Court in a suit for specific performance because. Mir Badshah -Khan cannot be made subject for the recovery of the amount. It is further stated that he has paid the entire sale amount.
3. I am afraid, both the contentions have no force; the property being mortgaged, when not redeemed, could always be subject to recover the-loan by enforcing the mortgage and the appellant cannot take up the plea of bona fide purchaser, even if he has bought the property through a Court decree, which suit, I am told, was decreed within weeks on the consent of Mir Badshah. As regards the contention that some money was paid to Mir Badshah Khan in pursuance to the decree for the specific performance passed in favour of the appellant, suffice it to say that the said amount was never towards the return of the loan amount of HBFC or paid to it. Thus if any fraud, misrepresentation as stated by the appellant's counsel has been committed by Mir Badshah, in this behalf; the appellant if so advised, may take legal action against him. But on account of the above, the property mortgaged for the purposes of discharge of the loan cannot be absolved of the charge/encumbrance. Resultantly, the Court below has rightly allowed the suit of the respondent, to which no exception can be taken. Dismissed. S.A.K./D-4/L Appeal dismissed.