P L D 1957 W (PLP)
Mian MUHAMMAD BUX RANJHA‑Petitioner Versus Mst. WAZIR BEGUM‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1957 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mian MUHAMMAD BUX RANJHA‑Petitioner Versus Mst. WAZIR BEGUM‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1957 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1957 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1957 W (PLP) (Mian MUHAMMAD BUX RANJHA‑Petitioner Versus Mst. WAZIR BEGUM‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kh. Abdur Rahim for Petitioner.
- Mian Muhammad Shat for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Mortgagee asking Revenue Authorities to take action under mortgage after nine years‑Revenue Officers cannot ignore mortgage deed.
Mortgage deed reciting fact that possession has been transferred to mortgagee‑Revenue Officer not to examine whether possession has actually gone into hands of mortgagee.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Mortgage‑
Mortgage deed reciting fact that possession has been transferred to mortgagee‑Revenue Officer not to examine whether possession has actually gone into hands of mortgagee. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Petitioner. Mian Muhammad Shat for Respondent. Mian Muhammad Bux executed a mortgage deed in favour of Mst. Wazir Begum. He recorded therein that the legal possession was actually transferred by him in her favour and that the mortgage deed was, therefore, recorded '`with possession": There is no doubt that the mortgagee did not ask the Revenue Officers to record her name as mortgagee till eight or nine years had passed after the execution of the mortgage deed. This delay, however, does not justify a refusal on the part of the Revenue Officers to take the mortgage deed into account. When the mortgage deed recites the fact that the possession has been transferred to the mortgagee, the Revenue Officer is no longer required to examine whether the possession has actually gone into the hands of the mortgagee. In the above circumstances, it is impossible to accept the recommendation of the Commissioner. The Assistant Collector and the Collector were justified in holding that our Revenue records should include the name of the mortgagee. The petition for revision is, therefore, dismissed. Judgment was reserved in this case. The parties should be informed. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.