' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The contentions of learned counsel for the appellants have been noted in the order, dated 15-10-2001. The same, therefore, need not be repeated. Today, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has conceded that the respondent-Bank is in possession of the original title deed, only in respect of property bearing No, B-VII-15-S-2. Mool Raj Bagh, Gujranwala. As for the other two properties, although the Bank claims to be a mortgagee by deposit of title deeds, the original deeds are not available with the Bank. The original title deeds in respect of the other properties are with the appellants. Who as bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration, acquired title in the same from Nazir Ahmad judgment-debtor, who is respondent No,2 in the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the Bank argued that Nazir Ahmad had submitted an affidavit alongwith attested copies of deed and a power of attorney to the Bank in respect of the remaining two properties. On this basis, it was contended a mortgage by deposit of title deeds stood created in favour of the Bank. This contention is not legally well-founded. It was for the Bank to obtain the original title deeds. It is obvious that the title deeds were not lost as had been stated by Nazir Ahmad to the Bank. In this view of the matter, it appears the respondent-Bank was defrauded by Nazir Ahmad. The Bank has to bear the consequences of such fraud and not the appellant, who is a bona fide purchaser of the properties for valuable consideration and also holds original title deeds of the said properties.
3. In the above circumstances, the Bank can only assert its security rights as mortgagee in respect of Property No, B-VII-15-S-2, Mool Raj Bagh, Gujranwala. The appeal of Sadiq Ali appellant in respect of the remaining two properties is accepted and as a consequence, his objection petition to the extent of the said two properties is allowed.
4. This appeal partially succeeds and is disposed of in ID the above terms.