MANNULAL Vs. NANHELAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is a second appeal arising out of an application in execution proceedings. The decree-holders as a result of an auction sale held not at headquarters but in the mofussil made an application under Order 21, Rule 71, Civil P. C., to recover a sum of Rs. 480 from Mannulal, the defaulting auction-purchaser. The facts found were as follows: The sale took place and was conducted by the sale amin. Mannulal offered a bid of Rs. 500 and the property was knocked down to him by the sale amin. Mannulal failed to pay the 25 per cent of the purchase price and protested against the acceptance of his bid. Under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 84, Civil P. C., the property was put to sale again and fetched only Rs. 20. The report of the circumstances was submitted by the sale amin to the Court which ordered the sale. The decree-holders' application under Order 21, Rule 71 was however rejected by the Court, although Mannulal's contention that he himself had not bid and that the bid was made by an unauthorized servant was negatived, as was also his contention on a point of law, that as the sale was open until confirmed by the executing Court he was entitled to retract his bid. The reason given by the learned Subordinate Judge for declining to pass the necessary order in the decree-holders' favour was that he considered that there was no proof that the sale amin, despite the fact that he had knocked the property down to the purchaser, had actually accepted the bid and declared him a purchaser under Rule 84.

(2.) AGAINST this decision the decree-holders appealed to the District Judge who agreed with the Subordinate Judge on the question of fact, namely, that the bid was made by Mannulal himself and not by any representative authorized or otherwise, and that no protest was made until after the bid had been knocked down and also on the point of law that the sale amin was entitled to accept a bid and to declare the bidder to be the purchaser. The decision of the Subordinate Judge that there had been no declaration that Mannulal was the purchaser was reversed, the learned District Judge considering that the action of the Sale amin in knocking down the property could not be interpreted otherwise than as a declaration that the bid was accepted and Mannulal declared the purchaser thereby. A direction was accordingly passed that Mannulal should make good the deficiency of Rs. 480 to the decree-holders and also bear the costs of the proceedings. Mannulal now files a second appeal.

(3.) THE lower appellate Court has found as a fact that the bid was by Mannulal himself, so this ground in no way arises. Ground No. 2 relates to the question whether the sale amin by his action did impliedly accept the bid of Mannulal. No argument has been directed on this point, but the decision on it really forms part of the decision of the main question, namely, whether the sale amin was empowered to accept a bid at all. On the immediate question it is sufficient to say that I am in agreement with the decision of the learned District Judge on this point and that if a sale amin conducting a sale in mofussil is empowered to accept the final bid, the fact of knocking down the property to the final bidder is an acceptance thereof. A sale amin himself has no power to decline to accept a final bid, and it must follow that having knocked the property down and thereby closing the sale any further direction on his part is superfluous. Moreover, as has been pointed out in this particular case, Mannulal's bid was the only one, and there can be no question of any acceptance of the bid of anyone else who might be there. The fact that the sale amin asked Mannulal to deposit 25 per cent of the purchase price is also proof that he had accepted the bid. All these facts show conclusively that the bid was accepted and the point that now remains is whether the sale amin was entitled to accept the bid.