ORDER ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.-- This appeal impugns the order dated 18.3.2002 passed by the learned Banking Court No.II, Faisalabad. By means of the said order, an objection petition filed by the appellants was dismissed.
2. The facts of this case are simple. Hie respondent Bank obtained a decree against Muhammad Shafique Babu respondent No. 2 and sought execution of the decree against the said respondent.
Respondent No. 2. Had mortgaged his property in favour of the respondent Bank. However, subsequently respondent No. 2 gifted the property in favour of his were Mst. Zareena Shahzadi and daughter Shaheena Naz. The gift was made by means of a registered deed on the basis of which a mutation in respect of the property was sanctioned in favour of Zareena Shahzadi and Shaheena Naz. The appellants purchased the property from the said, donees. Learned counsel argued that the appellants were entitled to protection of the provisions of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, being bona fide purchasers of the property for valuable consideration. He also cited the case titled Talib Hussan v. Babu Muhammad Shaft and 12 others (PLD 19Q7 Lah. 4).
3. The contentions of learned counsel for the appellants and the case cited by him do not advance the case of the appellants. It is clear that the original title deed of Muhammad Shafique Babu had been deposited with the Registrar Go-operative Societies District Mansehra, who was present at the hearing of the petition confirms that when the SHO alongwith the representative of the Co- operative Bank went for the arrest of Humayun, being a defaulter, they found him driving the tractor and therefore the tractor was taken in to possession and kept in the custody of the police at the Police Station. Even if the procedure adopted is legal, the tractor can only be detained and sold towards satisfaction of debt outstanding against Humayun, if it belongs to him. It is not the case of the respondent that the tractor is owned by Humayun. On the other hand, though the tractor is not in the name of the petitioner as it has not been transferred to his name but he is in possession of the Registration Book as well as the documents through which it has been sold to different persons and ultimately to the petitioner. Since Humayun is not the owner of the tractor and prima facie the petitioner is the owner, the tractor could not be seized for the satisfaction of the outstanding amount against Humayun. The writ petition is therefore allowed and the respondents are directed to release the tractor No. SAA 3252 to the petitioner unconditionally.