Ratnasami Pillai v. Sabapathy Pillai And Others

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram refusing to accept the bid of Bathnasami Pillai, the appellant, for taking on lease certain property, the subject-matter of a suit before the Court, and directing a re-sale. What happened was, the Receiver, who had been appointed in the suit, was directed by the Court to sell by public auction the lease of certain lands in suit for a year. The conditions of sale were printed and the printed leaflets were circulated. The Receiver held an auction in which the appellant before us, Rathnasami Pillai, was the highest bidder. When the matter was taken to the Sub-Judge for confirmation, he refused to accept Rathnasami Pillai's bid and directed a re-sale. It is against that order that this appeal is tiled.

2. The appellant contends that a completed contract had been entered into with him by the Receiver and that the Court should, therefore, have directed a lease to be executed in his favour in the terms of his bid.

3. At the re-sale ordered, the second respondent took the lease at a higher rate. A preliminary objection has been raised to this appeal that no appeal lies. The appeal has been filed under O. XLIII, r. 1, cl. (s) as against an order under O. XL, r. 1 of the CPC. We need not, however, decide this question, as we think that on the merits, the appellant has no case. The Receiver is an Officer of Court and whatever powers he exercises are delegated powers of the Court which the Court expressly gives him. He has no powers except what the Court grants him. Unless the appellant can show us that in this case the Court has delegated its power of entering into a completed contract with third parties 60 the Receiver, any action taken by the Receiver cannot be binding upon the Court or upon the properties. All that the appellant is able be show us is that he made the highest bid and that the published conditions of sale did not expressly state that the sale was subject be the confirmation of the Court. The absence of such a statement cannot, in our opinion, be treated as implying that the Court had abandoned its power of confirming the sale before it would bake effect. No doubt the ordinary rule regarding private auction is, that where an auction is held without any reservation, there is an implied condition that the highest bid will be accepted. But he authority has been cited be show that thus rule applies be a sale by a Court Officer under the directions of Court. In Court sales, it is acceptance by the Court that constitutes the contract. See Surendro Keshub Roy v. Doorgasoondery Dossee(1). The person who asserts that the Court Officer had power be bind the Court by his acceptance of a bid must prove it. The appellant has not been able to refer us be any evidence be show that such a power had been granted by the Court in this case. We must, therefore, hold that the Court had ample authority as ??? contract had been concluded with him and the Court's order directing a resale was ??? its powers. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs (costs one set).

4. C.R.P No. 948 of 1928 is dismissed with costs.

5. Appeal rejected.