Mohammad Umar v. Punjab and Sind Bank

Appeal Dy. No. 624/2022 Date: 16.09.2022

Mohammad Umar Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank

Present: Shri Sanjay Kumar Gupta, counsel for the appellant, Shri K. K. Tiwari, counsel for the respondent-Bank,

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a third party and lawful owner of a major part of the property. He further submits that the mortgagor had sold 150 sq. yards land in question in the year 2007 and the appellant has remained in possession of the property in question after purchase of the same from a person, who had purchased the same in the year 2007. The appellant has purchased the same in the year 2010. It is contended that the appellant has continuously been paying the municipal taxes of the property in question. In this regard, the learned counsel has drawn attention of this court to page no. 161 of the memo of appeal (municipal record), which shows that his name has also been recorded in the revenue record on 08.11.2008. It is also contended that the mortgage was created by the mortgagor in the year 2015 over the entire property including the portion, which is still with the appellant.

In the last, it is argued that the recovery proceedings were initiated by the Bank against the appellant for recovery of its dues of the mortgagor and possession of the property in question was taken, but the same has not been handed over to the auction purchaser. The learned counsel for the appellant prays that the interest of the appellant, who is a third party and bonafide purchaser of the property in question, for value may be protected till the present appeal is decided finally.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank prays for and is granted four weeks’ time to file reply with a copy of the same to the counsel for the appellant, who may file rejoinder within two weeks.