Court sale confirmation cannot be reopened for a later higher offer when the highest bid was proper and regular.

A court sale conducted by public auction and subject to confirmation was not liable to be reopened merely because a family member later offered a higher price. The highest bidder had complied with the sale conditions, including deposit, and the bid exceeded the reserve price fixed by the parties. In the absence of irregularity, fraud, or inadequacy in the price, the court was not justified in refusing a proper highest bid in favour of a later offer made on second thought. The sale was therefore confirmed and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a court sale held subject to confirmation could be reopened at a later stage merely because a member of the family offered a higher price after the auction.

Analysis: The sale had been held by public auction, the respondent was the highest bidder, he had complied with the conditions of sale, including deposit, and the bid had exceeded the reserve price fixed by the parties. The record disclosed no irregularity, fraud, or inadequacy in the price. The fact that the sale required confirmation by the Court did not justify rejecting a proper highest bid in favour of a later offer made on second thought.

Conclusion: The sale was rightly confirmed and the appeal failed.

---