Legal Case Summary

Case Details
Case ID 0be7a29c-9c3d-4062-9c43-4fbea2d45679
Body View case body.
Case Number D-2741 of 2016
Decision Date Sep 01, 2016
Hearing Date Sep 01, 2016
Decision The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to establish that they were a bona fide purchaser without notice regarding the mortgaged property. The court found that the appellant's claim was not valid as the objector had knowledge of the proceedings and did not fall under the category of a bona fide purchaser. Furthermore, the court reiterated the principle that once a mortgage is executed, it remains effective unless properly discharged. The High Court declined to interfere with the Banking Court's order, thus affirming the judgment.
Summary This case revolves around the application of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, particularly Section 19(7), and the Civil Procedure Code regarding the execution of decrees. The Lahore High Court examined the appellant's claim of being a bona fide purchaser without notice of the mortgage deed executed by the judgment-debtor. The court concluded that the appellant was aware of the prior mortgage and proceedings, thus invalidating their claim. The decision emphasizes the importance of due diligence in property transactions and the binding nature of registered mortgages. Key terms include bona fide purchaser, mortgage deed, and execution of decree, which are critical in property law and financial recovery cases.
Court Lahore High Court
Entities Involved Not available
Judges SHAHID JAMIL KHAN, JUSTICE, ALI AKBAR QURESHI, JUSTICE
Lawyers Muhammad Saleem Iqbal, Rana Muhammad Ashraf Khan
Petitioners MST. FARHAT BEGUM THROUGH LEGAL HEIR
Respondents 2 others, JUDGE BANKING COURT NO.1 MULTAN
Citations 2016 SLD 3335 = 2016 CLD 1089
Other Citations Not available
Laws Involved Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Sections 19(7), O. XXI, R. 58