JUDGMENT S.D. Anand, J.:- It is beyond the pale of controversy that the impugned loan had been raised by Gurmail Singh son of Iqbal Singh (respondent no.2 herein), a sibling of the objector/petitioner herein. Gurmail Singh aforementioned mortgaged the land under reference as a security for that loan. 2. In the course of the proceedings for execution of a decree for the recovery of that loan, the petitioner-objector objected to the attachment of that property on an averment that Gurmail Singh aforementioned had nothing, at all, to do with that land, which was owned by father of the private parties (the objector and also respondent) who had executed a will in respect thereof in favour of the objector (and his other siblings) to the exclusion of respondent no.2. 3. The above facts were put to the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank on 22.2.2010 and the learned counsel for the bank sought time to have instructions in the context of that averment. These facts were noticed in the course of the following order which came to be granted by this Court on 22.2.2010:- “The judgment debtor/loanee mortgaged the attached land in favour of the bank (respondent herein), vide mortgage deed dated 9.6.1995. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner herein is that on that date the land stood in the name of the father of the objector (and also that of the loanee), who died on 4.12.1997. He left a Will dated 8.7.1997 on the basis whereof a mutation came to be sanctioned on 27.5.1998 in favour of the objector herein. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the bank requests time to have instructions in the context of the averments aforementioned.” Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the bank states that he is not in a position to contest the factual averments made on 22.2.2010. 5. In the light thereof, Gurmail Singh would just could not have mortgaged the land under reference, as a security for the loan he had raised from the respondent bank. It would have been appropriate for respondent-bank as well to verify the title of loanee/mortgagor which exercise had apparently not been done. 5. In the light thereof, Gurmail Singh would just could not have mortgaged the land under reference, as a security for the loan he had raised from the respondent bank. It would have been appropriate for respondent-bank as well to verify the title of loanee/mortgagor which exercise had apparently not been done. If the bank had undertaken that exercise, it would have found out itself that the loanee was not in a position to mortgage the land under reference as a security for the loan raised by him as he had nothing to do with the title thereof. 6. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order shall stand set aside. The land under reference shall stand released from attachment. Disposed of accordingly. --------------