CLC 2004

2004 PLP 1829 (CLC)

MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. — Appellant Versus Messrs JUNAID COTTON MILLS LTD. and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
2004-June-1
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2004 PLP 1829 (CLC)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members N/A
Parties MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. — Appellant Versus Messrs JUNAID COTTON MILLS LTD. and others — Respondents
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1829 (CLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1829 (CLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1829 (CLC) (MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. — Appellant Versus Messrs JUNAID COTTON MILLS LTD. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 58(f)

Mortgage by deposit of title deeds

Agent

Deposit of title deed by owner or his authorized agent was sufficient to create charge and writing was not mandatory requirement

Son though was a blood relation of the mortgagor lady, but in absence of any authorization, the son or any blood relation could not be termed to be an agent

Document deposited by an unauthorized person would not create charge over the property.

Judgment & Decree

S. 58(f)

Mortgage by deposit of title deeds

Agent

Deposit of title deed by owner or his authorized agent was sufficient to create charge and writing was not mandatory requirement

Son though was a blood relation of the mortgagor lady, but in absence of any authorization, the son or any blood relation could not be termed to be an agent

Document deposited by an unauthorized person would not create charge over the property. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqi for Appellant. Short point involved in the appeal is whether an equitable mortgage was created by the deceased lady by presenting the title deed. Mr. Siddiqi tried to argue that equitable mortgage has been created by deposit of title document unaccompanied by memorandum of deposit of title document by son. His argument was based on clause (f) of section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, pertaining to equitable mortgage, it says that:-- "Where a person delivers to a creditor or his agent documents of title to immovable property, with intent to create security thereon, the transaction is called mortgage by deposit of title deed: Provided where mortgage by deposit of title deed is to be created in favour of the Banking Company as defined in "Banking Tribunal Ordinance, the same may also be created by an entry in the Record of Rights against the entry relating to such immovable property." The undisputed facts are that the document of title was deposited by son of the lady, who was not authorized by the lady to create charge over the property. We may observe that the deposit of title deed by owner or his authorized agent is sufficient to create charge, writing is not mandatory requirement. Mr. Siddiqi tried to argue that son for all intent and purposes is agent of the lady, therefore, mortgage was created by deposit of title deed. We are unable to subscribe to the view canvassed before us. No doubt, son is blood relation of the lady but in absence of any authorization, the son of any blood relation cannot be termed to be an agent. Therefore, we are of the view that document deposited by an unauthorized person will not create charge over the property. Thel appellant own case is that son is not agent as admitted by the plaintiffs witness Saleem Ahmed Khan. Consequently the appeal is merit less and is dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M-80/K Appeal dismissed.