WAZIRSINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
UNION OF INDIA(UOI)
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS second appeal by plaintiff Wazirsingh arises from the appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Ganganagar, dated December 2, 1961, in these circumstances
(2.) THIRTY bighas and one biswa of agricultural land situated in Chak No. 49 G. G. A. of tehsil Karanpur, district Ganga-nagar, was put to auction by the Sales Officer of the Evacuee Department of the State of Rajasthan. The plaintiff gave the highest bid and deposited Rs. 2164/- as the one-tenth amount, at the fall of the hammer on October 21, 1955. The plaintiff made several applications expressing his willingness to deposit the balance of the sale price and asking for delivery of possession of the land, but to no avail. He therefore filed the present suit on April 23, 1960 for recovery of Rs. 2164/-, and Rs. 596/- on account of interest, making a total of Rs. 2760/ -. The State of Rajasthan, which contested the suit, admitted the auction and the deposit of Rs. 2164/-, but pleaded that the sale was set aside by the Competent Officer and so there was no question of delivery of possession of the property to the plaintiff under that sale. Further, the defendant pleaded that when R bighas and 13 biswas of land were sold as composite property on november 15, 1956, the plaintiff offered the highest bid of Rs. 8650/- and made a request for the adjustment of his earlier deposit of Rs. 2164/- against that second sale. This was done, but as the plaintiff did not deposit the balance of the sale price, the sale was not confirmed. The defendant also denied the claim for interest and pleaded that the suit was barred by time. The plaintiff filed a replication which, it is not disputed, related to the second sale dated November 15, 1956. and it has no real bearing on the present controversy. The trial court framed issues on the points in controversy between the parties. It will, however, be enough to refer to the following three issues which arose for decision in the case.- (1) Whether the earlier deposit of Rs. 2164/- was adjusted on account of the plaintiff's bid at the second sale dated November 15, 1956 at his request and has it therefore been refunded to him already? (2) Whether the suit is within limitation? And (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? the trial court decided these issues against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit by his judgment dated May 23, 1961. On appeal, the learned District Judge held that the deposit of Rs. 2164/- had been adjusted against the deposit which was due from the plaintiff on account of the second auction sale, and that whatever balance was left over was not payable on account of the bar of limitation. In this view of the matter, the learned District judge maintained the order of dismissal of the suit. It is in these circumstances that this second appeal has arisen.
(3.) I have already set out the three points which arise for decision in this case and shall deal with them one by one.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.