THANJAVUR MUNICIPALITY Vs. R SWAMINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26-10-1987 rendered in o. S. No. 49 of 1984 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur thereby dismissing the suit filed by the appellant herein.

(2.) TRACING the history of the above appeal suit, it comes to be known that the appellant herein has filed the suit in O. S. No. 49 of 1984 before the Court of Subordinate judge, Thanjavur for recovery of a sum of rs. 30,100/- from the respondent/defendant on averments such as that the defendant was the successful bidder of plot No. 1 in T. S. No. 3013 in 6 acres 68 cents in the auction held on 25-3-1982; that earlier to this auction, the same plot was put on the open auction on 17-3-1982 and the defendant was the highest bidder having bidden for Rs. 11,800/- for the period commencing from 1-4-1982 to 31-3-1983 and since the bid amount was less, it was re-auctioned on 25-3-1982 wherein also the defendant was the higher bidder for a sum of rs. 30,100/- and the said bid was accepted and confirmed by the plaintiff on 27-3-1982 in its Resolution No. 1388 and the same has been communicated to the defendant; that as per the sale condition, the successful bidder has to deposit four months rent in advance and also execute the agreement and even though the defendant was called upon to do so by the communication dated 27-3-1982, he did not do the same.

(3.) THE further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant wrote to the plantiff by a letter dated 29-3-1982 raising certain allegations, which are untenable; that the auction was held after due publicity and after publishing sale condition to the bidders; that the defendant knowing the plot No. 1 fully well, contested the auction held twice and on both the occasions, he also with other bidders signed the letters to abide by the auction conditions after knowing the sale conditions dated 22-1-1982; that on both the occasions, he also executed a Muchalika to abide by the sale conditions dated 22-1-1982 and therefore, it is improper on the part of the defendant to dispute certain conditions as regards Plot No. 1 in T. S. No. 3013 which is a grass farm enjoyed by the plaintiff prior to the date of auction for some years; that the grass was in existence and only after knowing the real position, the defendant participated in the bidding and became the highest bidder for a sum of rs. 30,100/- which he himself did for rs. 11,800/- at the first auction; that for the reason best known to him, he refused to execute the agreement though he took possession of the property in pursuance of the bidding; that in spite of several attempts by the plaintiff, the defendant neither deposited four months' rent nor executed the agreement and therefore the plaintiff was constrained to cancel the licence on 12-10-1982 and informed the defendant, which was acknowledged by the defendant on 18-10-1982; that the plaintiff informed by this notice that the fresh auction would be held at his expenses and that he would be held liable for loss arising thereunder and action would be taken against him under clause 16 of the sale conditions; that even though the fresh auction was held after due publicity on 22-12-1982, there was no bid and again another date was fixed for auction on 24-1-1982; that since there was no bid, tender was called for on 10-2-1983; that since there was no response and as the year was nearing end, further auction could not be conducted and the defendant is therefore responsible for the loss caused to the plaintiff by his non performance and failure to abide by the sale conditions and therefore the defendant is liable for the loss of rs. 30,100/ -.