(1.) Second Appeal No. 1838 of 1989 arises from O.S. No. 643 of 1982, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Manamadurai. Second Appeal No, 1189 of 1996 arises from O.S. No. 212 of 1985, on the file of the same court.
(2.) Parties herein will be referred to in this judgment according to their rank in O.S. No. 643 of 1982, out of which S.A. No. 1838 of 1989 arises. Material facts which arise for consideration in both these second appeals may be stated as follows: Plaintiff filed the suit for an injunction restraining the defendants from conducting re-sale of the prosophis trees in the schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that those trees belong to the State-1st defendant in the suit. It was duly proclaimed in the District Gazette and in dailies that the prosophis trees will be sold in public auction on 13.8.1982 by the Tahsildar, Manamadurai, at the Taluk Office premises at Manamadurai. Wide publicity was also given regarding the sale, and the sale was conducted on 13.8.1982 as published by the Tahsildar, Manamadurai. There were various bidders, and plaintiff was the highest and successful bidder for Rs. 15,120. As per conditions of sale, he paid a sum of Rs. 5,040 to the Tahsildar, being one third of Rs. 15,120, and obtained receipt therefor. It is said that as per Board Standing Orders and as per law, the sale should be confirmed within a reasonable time. Plaintiff did not receive any confirmation order. It is said that confirmation is only a routine matter, and plaintiff made arrangements for cutting down the trees and for transporting the logs. For the said purpose, he spent nearly R. 5,000. It is said that due to some interference by persons who are inimically disposed towards plaintiff, confirmation in favour of plaintiff was postponed indefinitely and on 11.1.1982, plaintiff came to know that the Authorities concerned were thinking of conducting re-sale of the said trees. It is said that the auction held on 13.8.1982 was a fair one and, therefore, there cannot be a question of any fresh sale. It was prayed that the defendant should be restrained from conducting a resale of the property. The suit was instituted without complying with the provision of Section 80, C.P.C. Notice since urgent relief sought for.
(3.) In the written statement filed by the first defendant, they admit that the plaintiff was the highest bidder. But the same was subject to confirmation by higher authorities. Unless the sale is confirmed, plaintiff cannot claim any right over the trees. The sale was never confirmed. It is further averred in the written statement that the confirming authorities have every right either to confirm the sale or order re-sale if there is any irregularity in the conduct of the sale. It is said that one of the conditions is that the publication of the auction sale should be made in a daily consecutively for two days. The sale was conducted by the Tahsildar without complying with the above conditions and, therefore, the sale is invalid and incomplete for want of compliance of the directions and conditions laid down by first defendant-State. It is further said that while the sale itself was not complete, the State received telegraphic communication from several persons on 21.8.1982 that they are prepared to purchase the trees for Rs. 20,000, and one among them'was one Seetharaman (appellant in S.A. No. 1189 of 1996) who paid Rs. 20,000, as security deposit on 21.9.1982. It is further said that as per Board Standing Order, the sale will be complete only if it is confirmed by the defendant- State. It is further said that the plaintiff has admitted that the sale has not been confirmed and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. The allegation that the confirmation is only a routine matter is contrary to facts. Confirmation procedure is a mandatory one and binding on the plaintiff. They further deny that the plaintiff has made arrangements for cutting of trees and removal of logs. The expenditure incurred was also disputed. It is further stated that long before the institution of the suit, the auction conducted was cancelled by an order dated 7.10.1982 and the same was also served on the plaintiff. It is thereafter the present suit was filed. The suit, according to the defendant-State, is therefore not maintainable, and they further state that for conduct of re-sale on 5.11,1982, they have already spent a sum of Rs. 200. According to them, the suit is also bad for want of Section 80, C.P.C. notice.