IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 RSA.No. 630 of 2007(G) -------------------------------------- AS.257/2003 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD OS.747/1999 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: M.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O. MANICKAN, KUTHIRAMOOLY, KOLLENGODE, YAKKARA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAGHAVAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE TODDY WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, PALAKKAD. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. 4. RADHA, W/O. KRISHNAN,TAILOR, KUTHIRAMOOLY, NENMENI P.O., CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU FOR R2 SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN FOR R4 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- R.S.A.No. 630 of 2007 --------------------------- JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.747/99 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad assailing the concurrent verdicts passed against him by the courts below. It is argued by the counsel for the appellant that at the time of auction sale on 30.7.1999 of twenty cents for Rs.14,000/-, the value per cent of land was Rs.3,500/- and now the property would fetch Rs.5,000/- per cent; that the sale conducted at a price worked out at Rs.700/- per cent is highly unconscionable and that much loss is caused to the appellant. 2. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that such a low price alone could be fetched for the property sold in auction only because proper publication of sale had not been effected. At the same time, counsel for the appellant is unable to enlighten me as to the RSA 630/07 2 manner in which a publication is to be effected and how that is not effected in the instant case, apart from arguing that had there been wide publicity, the property would have fetched more value. He is unable to point out any illegality in conduct of sale by public auction and there is no evidence also to show that the property would have fetched anything more and even if the value that the property would have fetched in a private negotiated sale may be more, a public sale can be conducted and the sale can be knocked down only in favour of the highest bidder in the auction and that has been done in the instant case. 3. There is no substantial question of law involved for consideration by this Court in this regular Second Appeal and the prayer to set aside the sale and for perpetual prohibitory injunction was being rejected concurrently by both the courts below considering the contentions advanced by both sides on merits. The substantial questions of law RSA 630/07 3 attempted to be formulated in the appeal memorandum is assuming that fraud and collusion alleged in the plaint are established. In fact, on the evidence, the vague allegations as regards fraud and collusion had also been not established in the case. The concurrent findings of the courts below, in the circumstance, have only to be confirmed. This appeal is devoid of any merit. In the result, I dismiss this Regular Second Appeal in limine, refusing admission. 8th July, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv