1. In pursuance of an order passed by Gentle J. in a partition suit on the Original Side of this Court a public auction of the estate properties was held on 13th September 1937. One of the properties offered for sale was a house and its site known as Napier's Gardens. A reserve price of Rs. 1,10,000 was fixed and the members of the family were allowed to bid and set off the values of their respective shares. Appellant 1, who is a defendant in the suit and a member of the family, bid for this property, but when the reserve price was reached he refused to bid further. There were higher bids by others and the property was eventually knocked down to the respondent for Rs. 1,12,500. The condition of the sale required that the sale should be confirmed by the Court. The commissioners who conducted the sale reported the result to the Court and the sale came before Gentle J. for confirmation on 7th April 1938. Appellant 1 informed the Court that he would like to have the property for himself as it had been in his family for a long time. The learned Judge having inquired whether he was prepared to offer more, the matter stood adjourned until 11th April when the appellant informed the Court that he was prepared to offer Rs. 1,15,000. The respondent naturally objected to the matter being re-opened. He pointed out that he was the highest bidder at the public auction and that he had complied with all the conditions, of sale, including the payment of a deposit of Rs. 28,000. He contended that it would not be proper in these circumstances for the Court to re-open the matter. The learned Judge accepted the respondent's contention and confirmed the sale. The appeal is from the order of confirmation.
2. The order passed by the learned Judge is not open to serious question. The fact that the sale is subject to the confirmation of the Court does not mean that the Court shall refuse to accept the highest bid because at a later stage some one on second thought says that he is willing to pay more. It is only right and proper that the sale should be subject to the confirmation of the Court. The condition is a safeguard against irregularity or fraud in connexion with the sale and against property being sold at an inadequate price. No such consideration applies here, No complaint is made of any irregularity or fraud, and it is not suggested that the respondent's final bid was inadequate. Having exceeded the reserve price agreed upon by the parties it could not be said to be inadequate. The respondent having made an adequate bid and having complied with all the requirements of the Court and there being no irregularity he was entitled to have the sale confirmed. The appeal will be dismissed with costs.