RAJANAGARAM VILLAGE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY BY ITS SECRETARY Vs. P.VEERASAMI MUDALY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the defendant, the Rajanagaram Co -operative Society, is against the decree for specific performance of a contract of sale granted in favour of the plaintiff by the lower appellate Court. The only question that has to be considered is whether there was a concluded contract in favour of the plaintiff for the sale of the property by the defendant to the plaintiff.

(2.) THE property in dispute was purchased on 29 -5 -1941 by the defendant -society at an auction sale for a sum of Rs. 300, vide, EX. P -1. In 1943 the defendant wanted to dispose of his property by public auction. The terms of the auction sale are contained in Ex. D.1, dated 17 -6 -1948. Under Clause 1 it is stated 'the sale will be knocked down in favour of the highest bidder subject to the approval of the Mahasabba (the defendant) and the Chittoor District Bank.' There were also other conditions which have been laid down but it is unnecessary to refer to them as nothing turns on those conditions. The sale took place on 23 -6 -1943 and the plaintiff became the highest bidder of the property for a sum of Rs. 700. He deposited Rs. 175 on the date of sale with the sale officer and the balance of the price of RS. 525 was deposited by him with the defendant on 29 -6 -1943. The Chittoor District Central Bank took up the matter for consideration at the meeting of its executive committee on 29 -7 -1913 and approved the sale(vide Ex. P -4). This resolution, however, was not communicated to the plaintiff and no sale -deed was executed by the bank in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, by his notice dated 14 -12 -1943, EX. P -3, called upon the defendant to execute a conveyance in his favour. Thereupon the Bank cancelled its previous resolution and directed a re -sale of the property by its proceedings of 15 -12 -1943. The plaintiff instituted the suit therefore, for enforcing the sale on the basis that there was a concluded contract in his favour. This was denied by the defendant in the written statement.

(3.) IN this second appeal the same question has been strenuously argued on behalf of the defendant -appellant by Mr. Somasundaram. His contention is that the approval constitutes acceptance of the offer by the defendant and unless that was communicated to the plaintiff there was no concluded contract. The question is whether this contention is sound.