LPA/314/1990 3/ 3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 314 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ========================================================= BACHCHHANSING MUNASINGH - Appellant(s) Versus ANNAPURNABEN RAMNATH DECESED THRO PREMSAGAR RAMNATH & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PV HATHI for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. None for Respondent(s) : 2.2.1, 2.2.2,2.2.3 DELETED for Respondent(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 07/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)
Mr.
P.V. Hathi, learned advocate, appears for the appellant. None
appears for the respondents, though served.
2. We
have heard the learned counsel for the appellant who reiterated the
same contentions which were advanced before the learned Single Judge.
We have gone through the judgements of the City Civil Court Judge,
Ahmedabad and the judgement of the learned Single Judge. Both the
Courts have concurrently found on appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence on record that Jankiprasad (original defendant
No. 1) had no authority to enter into a mortgage agreement with the
present appellant, as he had no interest in the property whatever and
therefore mortgage agreement must be held to be void and not binding
on the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein). Further these findings
are based on the reported judgement of this Court and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. We see no reason to take different view and we are in
agreement with the conclusions of the Courts below. We, therefore,
dismiss the Letters Patent Appeal. There shall be no order as to
costs.
(BHAGWATI
PRASAD, J)
(S.R.
BRAHMBHATT, J)
(pkn)