A sale of evacuee property is not void ab initio merely because the Competent Officer holds a part of the property to be composite property, and the plaintiff's bid is an offer subject to acceptance by the Competent Officer and does not mature into a contract.

P. N. SHINGHAL, J.

( 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 plaintiffs 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.

( 4 ) IT has been argued by Mr. Sisodia, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, that the finding of the two courts below that the deposit of Rs. 2164/-, which was made on October 21, 1955, was adjusted on account of the deposit for the second sale dated November 15, 1956, even though concurrent, is vitiated because the defendants have not led any evidence to justify it. According to the learned counsel, the finding is based on no evidence at all. A perusal of the record shows that there is justification for this submission. The plaintiff produced receipt Ex. 6 dated October 21, 1955 to prove that he deposited Rs. 2164/-on that date for the sale of 30 bighas and 1 biswa of land, and the receipt has been admitted on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff has also recorded his statement to prove the deposit. He denied that he had agreed to the adjustment of that deposit against the second sale dated November 15, 1956 and his statement to that effect has not b