UTHUPPU MATHAI Vs. TAHSILDAR MEENACHIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was an abkari contractor of the State. Certain items of immovable property belonging to him were sold by public auction on 13. 9. 1956 under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue recovery Act, 1951. Ext. A is a copy of the proceedings of the sale. It shows the amount due from the petitioner as Rs. 22,402-5-5 and concludes as follows:

(2.) THE first contention before me is that the purchase on behalf of the State at the nominal price of one anna of property which according to the petitioner is worth more than Rs. 1,25,000 cannot be sustained. Sales by auction are as old as the law of sale and an auction as commonly understood (except in the form of auction known as a "dutch auction") is a public sale of property to the highest bidder. Sub-s. (3)of S. 36 of the Travancpre-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951, specifically provides for an auction. It says: "the sale shall be by public auction to the highest bidder". THE State was the highest bidder at the auction on 13. 9. 1956 and I see no reason to hold that the sale was bad because of the nominal character of the price obtained.

(3.) THE position in England is summed up as follows by Heber Hart in his "law of Auctions" (Third edition, p. 129): "unless a right to bid is expressly reserved on behalf of the vendor, the auctioneer must not accept any bid from him or anyone on his behalf, nor may be himself bid on his behalf. With regard to sales of goods, this is provided by the sale of Goods Act, 1893. Where a sale by auction is not notified to be subject to a right to bid on behalf of the seller, it shall not be lawful for the seller to bid himself or to employ any person to bid at such sale, or for the auctioneer knowingly to take any bid from the seller or any such person. Any sale contravening this rule may be treated as fraudulent by the buyer. With regard to sales of hereditaments of whatever tenure, the sale of Land by Auction Act, 1867, provides that whenever a sale by auction would be invalid at law by reason of the employment of a puffer, the same shall be deemed invalid in equity also". No enactment corresponding to the Sale of Land by Auction act, 1867, exists in this country. It is, however, unnecessary to consider what exactly is the position in the absence of such an Act as I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to accede to the petitioner's contention that the State should be considered as the vendor at the sale on 13. 9. 1956. THE property prior to the sale belonged to the petitioner and the fact that the sale was under a coercive process of law and not at his request or with his consent cannot make the petitioner anything less than a vendor or the Tahsildar anything other than his statutory agent for the purpose of conducting the sale.