The main legal point established in the judgment is the enforceability of the agreement and sale notification in a forest auction, as well as the liability of the plaintiff and the competence of the defendants to resell the right of collection and removal of the residual tree growth.

BHASKARAN, J. :- Plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was one for declaration that Ext.B4 agreement entered into by the plaintiff with the 3rd defendant on 20-11-1975 and Clause 8 of Ext.B-1 sale notification issued by the 3rd defendant regarding the sale of residual tree growth from the plaint coupe were unenforceable in law and that the plaintiff was not liable to pay any amount to the defendants on the basis of the said agreement or Clause 8 of the sale notice; and also for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from recovering the amount mentioned in the notices issued on 9-6-1976 (Ext.A-1) by the 3rd defendant by invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act or from appropriating the amount deposited by the plaintiff with 3rd defendant on 20-11-1975 as part of the earnest money. As a consequential relief the plaintiff also prayed for a decree to recover a sum of Rs. 13,640/- together with interest on the principal amount of Rs. 13,000/- from 7-10-1976 till realisation at the date of 7% per annum. The further relief sought in the suit was for the recovery of the movables described in Schedule II to the plaint, in case the defendants fail to deliver those movables, the plaintiff was to be given a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,510/- being the value thereof.

2. The material allegations in the plaint, relevant for the purpose of this appeal, could be stated as follows :-Sub-coupe No. 1 of Anakkulam Coupe No. 5 in Anchal Range of Punalur Forest Division was vested with the 1st defendant, the State of Kerala and was under the control and supervision of defendants 2 and 3 (the Circle Conservator of Forests, Quilon, and the Divisional Forest Officer, Punalur, respectively) during the material time. The 3rd defendant sold the right to collect and remove all the residuary tree growth in the plaint coupe on 20-11-1975 by public auction. The conditions of sale are set forth in the notification published by the 3rd defendant on 11-10-1975 (Ext.B-1) of which Ext.B-2 was the gazette publication. As per the terms of this notification, the 3rd defendant was to accept the bid, and the 2nd defendant was to confirm the acceptance for completing the contract of sale. The timber and firewood had to be removed from the coupe before 31-3-1976. On acceptance of the bid by the 3rd defendant, the successful bidder had to deposit Rs. 10,000/- or 1/3 of the bid amount whichever is less as part payment of earnest money. The bidder had also to execute an agreement with the 3rd defendant providing that the bidder would not withdraw the bid before confirmation of the acceptance by the 2nd defendant. On confirmation by the 2nd defendant, the bidder would deposit one third of the bid amount as earnest money and execute a formal agreement with the State incorporating the terms and conditions governing the contract of sale. In the auction held on 20-11-1975 the plaintiff participated and bid the coupe for Rs. 2,09,000/-. Since the plaintiff's bid was the highest, the 3rd defendant accepted it, subject to confirmation by the second defendant. The plaintiff deposited Rs. 10,000/- with the 3rd defendant as per the terms of the notification. The plaintiff also executed an agreement with the 3rd defendant agreeing to execute a formal agreement with the 1st defendant after the acceptance of the bid was confirmed by the 2nd defendant. As per the terms of the agreement, if the plaintiff failed to execute the formal agreement the 1st defendant shall have the power and authority to recover from the plaintiff any loss or damage caused to the Government as might be determined by the Government. The Government could also recover the loss or damage by appropriating the above earnest money deposited by the plaintiff and if that was found inadequate, the balance could be recovered from the plaintiff and his properties under the Revenue Recovery Act. The 2nd defendant confirmed the acceptance of plaintiff's bid by the 3rd defendant as per his