Satyanarayana Rao, J.
1. The plaintiff sued the 'defendant for damages for slander. The complaint is that the defendant got a torn torn made in the following words
Sukraj Bikajee's goods (Sukraj Bikaji is the plaintiff) are being sold by public auction at 3 p.m. on 27th October, 1944.
According to plaintiff these words constituted slander and that he had suffered damage. The plaintiff's suggestion is that these words suggest the innuendo that the plaintiff was not solvent and that his goods were being brought to sale by auction by the creditor. The first Court accepted the contention of the plaintiff and granted a decree for Rs. 500 as damages. On appeal the learned District Judge reversed this decision holding that the words do not per se constitute slander. I agree with the conclusion of the learned District Judge. I find nothing in the words to suggest that the plaintiff was an insolvent and that therefore his goods were being sold by auction. It is significant that in the announcement by P.W. 3, the drummer who did the torn torn it was not even said that the goods were being sold at the instance of the defendant. Usually a creditor has no right to sell the goods of the debtor himself. The mere fact that the goods were being sold by auction without the addition that the goods were sold in pursuance of a decree or through the Official Receiver does not by itself in my opinion suggest the inference that the goods were sold by auction because the owner of goods did not pay his debts. The contention urged on behalf of the appellant that the words do convey that meaning is, in my opinion, far-fetched and cannot be accepted. Even taking the background suggested on behalf of the appellant, I am unable to see innuendo in the words used' by P.W. 3 when the auction was advertised.
2. There is no ground for interference with the decision of the learned District Judge. The second appeal fails and is therefore dismissed.
3. No leave.