MST. SHAMIM AKHTAR versus BANKING COURT NO.5, LAHORE
Claims for sale of property by mortgagee executed in Sections 19 and 22, the appellant purchased the property from the respondent, (the widow of the adjudicator) the bank believed that the widow initially sold the property to the deceased husband, who The mortgagee was with the bank, but later he sold the appellant to the fraudster, when he did not own it. The banking court dismissed the request for objection to Toj Val Valia, a disabled son, two young men. There was a daughter and a minor son, and he was not in a position to ask the widow to apologize for the dues. Apart from the complimentary amount of Rs. 1,00,000, which was more than Rs. It is likely that the widow has paid the principal and the bank receives more than 80,000 rupees from such return period. The High Court dealt with the observation that the appellant and the widow each received 50, 000 on payment period, the whole order will be satisfied. But in the event of the appellant's failure to pay his portion, the sale of the property may result in the reclamation of the entire unclaimed amount. But in the event of the widow's failure, the appellant can do her part to protect the property from auction, but may initiate proceedings against the widow to commit fraud.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
