BACHCHA LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,190.00. The plaintiff claimed that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,775/-towards the one-fourth of the auction bid which he gave in an auction which was held on behalf of the defendant-respondent to auction certain properties situated at Katra, Allahabad. A sum of Rs. 415/- has been claimed as interest @ 6% per annum on account of failure of the defendant-respondent to deliver possession over a part of the property in respect of which the plaintiff's bid was accepted by the defendant-respondent.

(2.) The brief facts are these : The defendant owned building No. 996/1143 situated at Raja-Ki-Mandi, Katra, Allahabad. It was decided by the defendant to sell the said building in portions through public auctions. The building was accordingly divided into several portions and the auction sale for the same was held on 11th and 12th July. 1962. The plaintiff also offered bids for portion No. 2 and his bid for Rs. 11,100.00 was the highest. The adjoining portion, namely, portion No. 3 was auctioned to Smt. Shanti Devi, wife of Shri Shyam Sunder, the Peshkar of the Property Officer of the defendant. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff was induced to offer bids by the said Property Officer of the defendant with a view to increase the bids. Further, it has been alleged in the plaint that at the time of the auction of portion No. 2 it was announced by the Property Officer as well as by the said Shri Shyam Sunder that the eastern and the western walls were included in the said portion No. 2. The plaintiff averred that he had given his offers acting on the said representation. The necessary sanction was given to the aforesaid highest bid of the plaintiff and when the plaintiff was called upon to deposit the balance of the auction money, he found that the said Shyam Sunder had taken possession of the entire eastern wall of portion No. 2 and had removed the foundation fixed therein. He also closed the openings thereof with bricks. The plaintiff alleged that he brought the said matter to the notice of the authorities of the defendant but they took no steps in the matter. Subsequently, it was alleged, Hira Lal, the purchaser of portion No. 1 took possession of the western wall. This fact was also brought to the notice of the authorities of the defendant but again to no effect. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff sought the refund of his one-fourth amount but instead of returning the money the defendant forfeited the same. It was contended that the defendant had committed the breach of contract and not the plaintiff who was always willing to perform his part of the contract. Hence the suit. The defendant resisted the same on various grounds. It was denied that any such representation was made at the time of the auction as was alleged by the plaintiff in respect of the eastern and the western walls. It was claimed that the auction sale was held in accordance with the separate plans which were prepared in respect of separate portions were on the table even at the time of the public auction. Apart from the said plans no other assurance was given nor representation made on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff knew from the plans that the eastern wall was not included in the portion for which he was bidding. The western wall was undoubtedly included in the said portion and the defendant said that it was wrong that Hira Lal had taken possession of the same. The said wall could still be delivered along with the portion in case the plaintiff would have been entitled to get the sale-deed in his favour. But it was said that the plaintiff failed to deposit the three-fourth of the balance amount in accordance with the terms of the auction and, therefore, in accordance with those very terms the one-fourth sum which was earnest money, was liable to be forfeited. It was denied that the defendant had committed the breach of contract. The breach was alleged to have been committed by the plaintiff. The trial court framed the following four issues and tried the suit.

(3.) It held that no assurances were given or representations made at the time of the auction as was alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was said to have been in breach of the contract and the defendant was held not to be in such breach. The defendant, according to the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties, was held to be entitled to forfeit the amount in question and the plaintiff was, therefore, held not entitled to any refund. The suit was accordingly dismissed. The lower appellate court affirmed the trial court's decree. It emphasised that the alleged breaches on the part of the defendant were in the nature of an after-thought and in this connection referred to the statement of Bachcha Lal (P.W. 1) wherein he admitted in his cross-examination that the dispute about the walls arose after four months after the necessary sanction had been received from the Rajasthan Government. The lower appellate court emphasised that the stipulation between the parties was that within one month of the said sanction the balance amount of the auction money would be deposited by the plaintiff but he failed to do so.