Judgment

JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. :- A tea estate of 100 acres with some buildings, machinery and equipments was given as security to the Kerala Financial Corporation ("The Corporation") against the loan taken by the appellant. A part of the loan remained outstanding and the appellant could not clear it. The Corporation thereupon filed O.A. No. 8/64 before the District Court of Kottayam for recovery of the arrears and obtained decree for an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/-. In execution of the decree, the said tea estate was brought for sale by court auction. On Nov. 5, 1969, the auction sale was held. There was no bidder. So the Corporation itself had to purchase the property for about Rs. 1,65,000/-. There was long standing dispute between the workmen of the estate and the previous management relating to payment of their wages. The Corporation therefore could not take possession of the estate. An extent of 85 acres out of 100 acres of the estate was in possession of the workmen as per settlement arrived at between the Labour Commissioner and the District Collector. The workmen used to collect the income therefrom towards their wages. This arrangement continued for about thirteen years. On Jan. 7, 1982, the Corporation got possession of the entire estate. The Corporation wanted to recover its amount. It was not interested in the property. It, therefore, invited tenders for the sale of the estate. On Mar. 19, 1982, a tender notification was published in dailies like Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhoomi and Deepika newspapers. In response to the notification, the daughter-in-law of the appellant was the only tenderer. She offered Rs. 5,10,505/-. The Corporation accepted the tender. It was subsequently found that the daughter-in-law was no better than the appellant. She also could not pay any amount.

2. On Jan. 18,1983, the Corporation again invited tenders for the sale of the property. The notification was, published in the said newspapers as it was done earlier. This time, the Corporation received these tenders : (i) T. M. Hassan Rawther (appellant before us) for Rs. six lakhs; (ii) P. M. Jacob for Rs. 4,15,550/- and (iii) K. K. Mathew for Rs. 2,07,451/-. Since the appellant submitted the highest offer, the Corporation naturally had to accept it. On Mar. 2, 1983, the acceptance was communicated to the appellant. He must have thanked his stars for getting back his family property which was so dear to him or which was according to him so valuable. But there was no such anxiety shown. He did not pay anything except the earnest money of Rs. 40,000/-. The Corporation, however, extended the time for payment again and again. The Corporation also gave him instalments for payment of the balance price. All the efforts of the Corporation failed to induce the appellant.

3. The Corporation wanted to get back its money. It was not interested in retaining the property. So it negotiated with P. M. Jacob who had submitted his tender along with the appellant in response to the notification dt. Jan. 18, 1983. He had then offered Rs. 4,16,550/-. His tender was the next best. After negotiation, he enhanced the offer to Rs. four and a half lakhs. The Corporation accepted it and decided to sell the property to P. M. Jacob. The property, however, was sold to M/s. Gumraj Plantations at the request of P. M. Jacob. M/s. Gumraj Plantations is a partnership firm in which P. M. Jacob is one of the partners.

4. The appellant who could not purchase the said property by any means filed suit O.S. No. 229/84 before the Munsif Court Thidupuzha to restrain the Corporation from selling the property. He could not get relief in the suit since by then the sale deed was executed in favour of M/s. Gumraj Plantations. Subsequently, he moved the High Court of Kerala complaining that the Corporation while selling the property for Rs. four and a half lakhs to M/s. Gumraj Plantations, had deviated from the normal practice of inviting tenders from the public. He contended that the Corporation b