Find a Lawyer

Regular First Appeal No.176 of 1981, decided on 290 March, 1987.

---Ss.6, 7 & 12--Suit for recovery of loan--Charge on property- Property mortgaged with Bank as security for repayment of a particular loan, held, could be subjected to charge of said loan only alongwith interest and expenses relating thereto and of no other loan Judgment and decree of Court below charging all loans upon property mortgage: was modified by High Court to the extent of repayment of specified loan only.

Syed Najamal Hassan Kazmi for Appellants.

Chaudhary Nazeer Ahmad Khan for Respondent No.1.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to 11.

Date of hearing: 29th March, 1987.

--The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Special Judge (Banking), Lahore, dated the 8th July, 1981, decreeing respondent 1's suit for the recovery of outstanding amount of debt of Rs.70,46,454 with interest and costs against the appellants and respondents 2 to 11 may be shortly stated. Mian Muhammad Latif, respondent 2, and his brother, the late Mian Muhammad Rafi, father of respondents 3 to 10 and husband of respondent 11, obtained in May, 1975 from Muslim Commercial Bank, Limited, respondent 1, loans of Rs.20,00,000, 8,00,000, Rs.7,00,000 and Rs.5,00,000 against mortgage of their jointly owned properties. At the moment we are concerned with only the loan of Rs.20,00,000 for repayment of which the two brothers (Mien Muhammad Latif and Mian Muhammad Rafi) mortgaged their Nilibar Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory, Arifwala. Subsequently, without the knowledge and consent of respondent 1, they partitioned between themselves their joint properties which they had mortgaged with respondent 1. Nilibar Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory, Arifwala, which had been mortgaged with respondent 1 in respect of the loan of Rs.20,00,000 fell to the share of respondent 2 who transferred it by sale in favour of his sons who are appellants in the appeal. Respondent 1 had to sue the appellants and the debtors for the recovery of the outstanding amount of loan in the learned Special Court (Banking). The suit was decreed and the learned Court subjected the mortgaged properties including the Nilibar Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory, Arifwala, to the charge of the entire amount of all the loans.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that since the Nilibar Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory, Arifwala, had been mortgaged with respondent 1 as security for repayment of the loan of Rs.20,00,000, the learned trial Court could create charge thereon only to the extent of the repayment of the aforesaid loan with interest and expenses relating thereto and that the decree of the learned Court in so far as it placed the charge of all the loans upon the said property was not valid. The learned counsel for respondent 1 receded this argument. As the Nilibar Cotton Ginning and Pressing factory Arifwala has been: mortgaged for the repayment of loan of Rs.20,00,000 it could have beer subjected to the charge of the said loan and of no other. The impugned judgment and decree a are modified to the extent that the Nilibar Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory, Arifwala, will be subject to the charge of the loan of plus interest thereon and expenses incurred by respondent 1 in respect thereof. It will not be subject to the charge of other loans aggregating Rs. 20,00,000. With the aforesaid slight modification of the decree the appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

H.B.T./I-22/L Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.