HUBLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL Vs. CHANDRASHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by the defendant in OS No. 421 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, at Dharwad who though was successful in resisting the money claim of the plaintiff for recovery of sum of Rs. 13,000/- with interest as the suit was dismissed in terms of the Judgment and decree dated 20-11-1995 by the trial Court, was not successful before the lower appellate court in RA No. 2 of 1996 filed by the plaintiff which came to be decreed in terms of the judgment and decree dated 30-11-2001 by the i Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn. ,) and CJM at dharwad, is therefore before this Court.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the above appeal are that the plaintiff a person who had participated in auction sale of a building which was being used for octroi office by the defendant - Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation which auction was held on 2-5-1985, had offered the highest bid of Rs. 18,100/- charges and that the licence could be for a period of three years from the years 1995 to 1998; that the plaintiff who had deposited a sum of rs. 500/- as earnest money further deposited 50% of the bid amount i. e. , Rs. 9,050/- on that day, but later realising that the bid amount of rs. 18,100/- does not cover three years period, but for every year this amount is to be paid had written a letter withdrawing from his offer as per his letter dated 20-5-1985; that notwithstanding the defendant - Corporation had sent a letter indicating that the standing Committee had accepted the offer of highest bid of Rs. 18,100/- and calling upon him to pay the balance bid amount; that the plaintiff again represented he has rescinded his offer after realizing the mistake for bid amount for every year and not for three years put together; that therefore the amount should be refunded to him, but on the other hand received a further communication dated 7-9-1985 informing the plaintiff that the amount has been forfeited in terms of the conditions of public auction and whereupon the plaintiff had caused issue of legal notice for refund of the amount, the defendant not having acceded to this, had filed a suit for recovery of money etc. . .

(3.) THE defendant contested the suit. While plsaint averments were generally denied, it was asserted that the conditions of auction sale were made known to the bidders before the auction commenced; that there were four bidders at the auction who all had deposited the initial deposit of Rs. 500/-; that the auction was being conducted in terms of a public notification caused by the corporation and published in Vishwa Wani Kannada newspaper dated 28-4-1985; that the conditions of auction sale were read over by the person conducting the auction sale and the bidders had after understanding the same acknowledged by putting their signatures in the register maintained for auctioning the property; that the plaintiff having made the highest bid of rs. 18, 100/- and having understood this and having paid a sum of Rs. 9,050a, 50% of the bid amount, was required to pay the other 50% after the final approval by the standing Committee; that the highest bid amount of the plaintiff had been provisionally accepted by the Officer conducting the auction sale; that the plaintiff having not paid the balance of the bid amount had contravened the conditions laid down in the auction as per the terms and conditions read over at the time of auction and to avoid the consequence the plaintiff had come up with false and untenable alllegation and averments in the plaint; that the plaintiff having not acted in terms of the auction sale, the defendant was left with no other option but to forget the amount already deposited by the plaintiff; that the conditions of auction sale are binding on the plaintiff ard therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to claim refund of the amount deposited and the plaintiff having accepted the terms of auction sale, is estopped from questioning the validity of the auction sale; that the claim is not legal or tenable; that the suit is liable to be dismissed as the claim is baseless and without legal support and prayed accordingly.