Non-compliance with auction deposit rules renders the sale invalid, necessitating re-auction.

ORDER

1. Smt. Varadamma (the petitioner’s mother) and Smt. Sundramma (the petitioner’s sister) instituted a suit for partition against the petitioner—Yuvaraja and his younger brother—Gopalakrishna in respect of a house property bearing No.363, measuring 30 X 17½ feet. The said suit was decreed on 01.02.2007, as a result of which the plaintiffs and the defendants were each granted 1/4th share and a preliminary decree was ordered to be drawn up.

2. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated to draw up a final decree and during the pendency of these proceedings, Smt. Varadamma—the mother of the petitioner passed away, and as a consequence, Yuvaraja, his sister—Smt. Sundramma, his brother—Gopala Krishna and himself became entitled to 1/4th share each.

3. In the final decree proceedings, a Court Commissioner was appointed to partition the property, but the Court Commissioner filed a memo stating that the property could be partitioned, having regard to its extent. In view of said report, the Court directed that the property be auctioned.

4. After the Court directed that the property be sold in auction, the petitioner filed an application under Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, 1983 requesting the Court to permit him to participate in the auction for purchasing the shares of his siblings and of his mother. This application was, however, dismissed on merits and since this order was not challenged, the same has attained finality.

5. The first auction was conducted on 24.05.2014 wherein the property was sold for a sum of Rs.26,50,000/- .The auction purchaser did not deposit said amount and the sale was not concluded.

6. The property was auctioned for the second time on 06.09.2014, and in this auction, the highest bid was for a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- but, even in respect of this auction, the auction price was not deposited and the sale could not be concluded.

7. On 17.01.2015, the property was auctioned for the third time and the 4th respondent herein was the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, and this bid was also accepted by the Court Commissioner.

8. The 4th respondent deposited said sum of Rs.25,00,000/- in 5 installments on the following dates:

9. After the above deposits were made, the 4th respondent filed an application for confirmation of the sale and for issuance of the sale certificate. This application was opposed by the petitioner, but the Trial Court by way of the impugned order has allowed said application and, while allowing the application, the Trial Court has taken note of the fact that the petitioner had filed an application seeking to exercise his option to purchase the property and since the same was rejected, he could not question the sale conducted.

10. As can be seen from the tabular column indicating the payments made pursuant to the auction, it is clear that as against the 25% of the auction amount which ought to have been deposited (i.e., Rs.06,25,000/-), the 4th respondent had only deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is thus clear that proceedings pursuant to the auction should not have been continued and the bid of the petitioner ought to have been rejected and the property was to be re-auctioned.

11. It may also be noticed here that the balance of the bid amount, in view of Order XXI Rule 84 of the CPC, is required to be deposited within 15 days from the date of the auction. In this case, the 15th day fro