LAWS(GJH)-2008-7-488

BACHCHHANSING MUNASINGH Vs. ANNAPURNABEN RAMNATH

Decided On July 07, 2008
Bachchhansing Munasingh Appellant
V/S
Annapurnaben Ramnath Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.