RAJAH OF BOBBILI Vs. AKKELLA SURYANARAYANA RAO GARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition and appeal relate to the circumstances in which a Court Bale was concluded by the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam. The decree under execution was for over Rs. 2,50,000 and eight villages of a Zsmindari belonging to the judgment-debtors, here respondents, were put up for sale in one lot on 27th September 1918. The sale was continued from that date until 22nd October 1918, when other bidders having dropped out, competition was confined to the Rajah of Bobbili, the petitioner and appellant here, and one Perla Ramamurthi Chetty. On that date the former by his Muktyar or agent bid Rs. 3,25,000. On 28th October 1918, however, the Chetty bid Rs. 3,25,000. The sale was then continued until 3th November 1918, although no further bids were received, apparently in compliance with the requests of the Rajah and the Chetty contained in two of the telegrams marked as Exhibit III Meanwhile news was received of the Chetty s death and on the date last mentioned an adjournment to the next day was granted to enable his widow to bid; and there were further adjournments until 18th November 1918, when the Subordinate Judge held quite correctly that the Chetty s bid was revoked by his death. He, however, decided to go on with the sale from the bid of the Rajah as the highest before him. No other bid being made, he at once knocked down the property in the Rajah s favour on his last bid of Rs. 3,25,000 granting him time until the next evening to pay the necessary deposit. As it was not paid by 20th November 1918, he held that a default was established and directed the re-sale of the property forthwith at the Rajah s risk. The re sale went on until 27th November 1918, when the present proceedings had been initiated and a stay order was passed by this Court. The appeal and the petition before us are against the order of 20th November 1918 directing a re-sale.

(2.) The foregoing appears from the original sale list more clearly than from the print, because the orders of the Subordinate Judge have been recorded with an informality, which the importance of the proceedings should have led him to avoid; and, it may be added, in slipshod language, unbecoming an officer of his standing. There are, moreover, portions of his orders, of which it is necessary to express disapproval on other grounds. On 22nd November 1918 he said, in adjourning the rale, "let the competitors think over and stop." On 31st October 1918 he expressed the opinion in his order on one telegram included in Exhibit III that the price was already too much. On 18th November 1918, he stated that he had already granted adjournment for the benefit, not only of the Chetty s widow and the Rajah, but also to enable other bidders such as the Maharajah of Jeypore to come forward and he referred to the possibility of the Court of Wards, which had taken over the Cbetty s estate, wishing to purchase, although there was no application of any sort from the Maharajah and nothing formal from the Court of Wards before him. The only duty of the Subordinate Judge was to hold a fair sale, giving reasonable opportunity to purchasers to come forward; and these public references to his own opinion as to the price and as to possible competitors were out of place and should not have been made.

(3.) We are not, however, concerned directly with them or their effect, but with the Subordinate Judge s action in knocking down the property on the last bid of the Rajah when the Chetty s higher bid had been revoked, the former s contentions being that this procedure was irregular because either his own bid had been in fact retracted on 5th November 1918, or it had been discharged by (1) the suspension of the sale on its adjournment at the close of the day or (2) the higher bid of the Chetty. As regards first, the alleged retraction, the plea rests on the affidavit of the Rajah s Muktyar dated 25th November 1918. The facts are denied in the respondent s affidavit of 24th December 1918. In these circumstances it is impossible to reach any conclusion regarding them without taking oral evidence and calling on the Subordinate Judge for a report; and, as one of the other contentions advanced affords ground for an immediate decision, I turn to it at once.