JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Praveen Akhouri, learned S.C. (Mines)-I for the respondents-State. 2. This second appeal has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 26.11.2009 and the decree signed on 20.12.2009, passed in Money Appeal No. 01 of 2008, by the learned District Judge, Lohardaga, dismissing the said appeal and modifying the judgment dated 16.05.2008 and the decree signed on 21.05.2008, passed in Money Suit No. 01 of 2000, by the learned Sub-Judge-II, Lohardaga. 3. The Money Suit No. 01 of 2000 was instituted for a money decree for a sum of Rs. 2,54,531/-, as per the details given in the schedule along with cost of the suit with interest pendente lite and future. 4. The money suit was decreed on contest vide order dated 16.05.2008, for a money decree of Rs. 79,490/-along with interest pendente lite and future and cost of the suit. The defendants were directed to pay the amount within 30 days of this order and the plaintiff will be at liberty to realize the decreetal amount through machinery of the court on payment of cost. Aggrieved with the said judgment, the respondents-defendants filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Lateher, which was registered as Money Appeal No. 01 of 2008. By the judgment dated 26.11.2009, the said money appeal was dismissed with modification of the judgment and decree passed in Money Suit No. 01 of 2000, filed on behalf of the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand). Aggrieved with that, the present second appeal has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs. 5. In the plaint, it has been pleaded that the plaintiff’s case is that he has got his business of timber in the name and style of M/s Commercial Timber Company having its office at Kanta Toli Chowk, Purulia Road, Ranchi. He participated in the auction on 23.01.1997, 24.02.1997 and 20.03.1997 held by the Divisional Forest Officer, State Trading Division, Lohardaga and was allotted L-24, L-33, L-40R, L-46R, B-59, B-62, B-72. The plaintiff deposited the security amount of Rs. 90,309/-for the purchase of the aforementioned lot Nos. L-24 and L-23. The first auction of lot No. L-24 and L-33 was held on 23.01.1997 for a sum of Rs. 79,490/-and the plaintiff was required to deposit 15% of the said price as the security deposit, which the plaintiff deposited on that very day. 90,309/-for the purchase of the aforementioned lot Nos. L-24 and L-23. The first auction of lot No. L-24 and L-33 was held on 23.01.1997 for a sum of Rs. 79,490/-and the plaintiff was required to deposit 15% of the said price as the security deposit, which the plaintiff deposited on that very day. The plaintiff has deposited a sum of Rs. 73,160/-on 18.02.1997 towards the balance amount of the sale price for lifting the timber. After this the trucks were also sent by the plaintiff for receiving the delivery of timbers of lot Nos. 24 and 23, but the same was not released because in the meanwhile Lohardaga depot was seized by competent authority and the said depot remained seized for about six months. In the meantime, the sale price remained deposited with the defendant No. 4. It is further case of the plaintiff that the second auction was held on 24.2.1997 for lot No. L-40R, L-46R and the total price was fixed at Rs. 3.16, 900/-. The plaintiff deposited Rs. 47,535/-as security deposit on 24.2.1997. Because Lohardaga depot was seized, therefore, the plaintiff was not asked to deposit the sale price nor the said sale was confirmed by competent authority within ninety days from date of auction. As such plaintiff is entitled to refund of the security deposit made on 24.2.1997. Similar auction with respect to lot B-59, B62, B-72 was held on 20.3.1997 and the total price of said lot was fixed at Rs. 2,06,300/-. The plaintiff deposited 15% of the sale price as security deposit but the defendant did not confirm the said bid within 90 days from the date of auction. Plaintiff is not bound to deposit the balance of sale price because the timber which was auctioned lost its quality. Since the bid was not ratified within ninety days by the defendants, therefore, plaintiff vide its letter dated 29.4.1997 and 2.7.1997 requested the defendant No. 4 to refund the security money. With respect to the L 24 and L 33 since the plaintiff was not allowed to lift the timber on account of seizure of depot and lapse, of six months because of the deterioration of the quality. The claim has been made for the amount deposited as sale price. With respect to the L 24 and L 33 since the plaintiff was not allowed to lift the timber on account of seizure of depot and lapse, of six months because of the deterioration of the quality. The claim has been made for the amount deposited as sale price. It is further asserted that since the quality of timber L 19 and L 23 were in good condition, therefore, they were lifted after depositing the sale price but the other lots L 24, L 23, L 40 (R) L46 (E) lost their quality so was not bound to lift them. 6. In pursuance of the notice issued, the defendants have appeared and filed their joint written statements. It is inter alia pleaded on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff’s suit is barred by Limitation and the general terms and conditions for auction sale of forest produce applicable from 1.8.1986. It is asserted that the plaintiff deposited total Rs. 1,23,550/-on different dates and the same is forfeited in terms of forest produce auction rules 1986. By entering into the auction sale of forest produce the plaintiff was bound by the general terms and condition for sale of forest produce as printed in the bid sheet which becomes an agreement. It is further averred that plaintiff neither deposited the sale price nor turned up to lift the timber immediately after ratification. The total amount deposited has therefore, been forfeited under Rule 16(a) and 16(b) of the Forest Produce Auction Rules 1986. The plaintiff had entered into the bid for auction on 23.1.1997 and declared the successful bidder, accordingly he signed the bid sheet for sale of forest produce and is therefore, bound by general terms and condition of sale. It has, however, been admitted that Lohardaga and Bisunpur depot were seized on 20.3.1997 and was vacated with effect from 29.5.1997. The defendant No. 4 by his letter No. dated 29.5.1997 informed the plaintiff to lift the purchased logs. But the plaintiff neither lifted the purchased logs nor deposited the sale price for other logs. Regarding the second auction with respect to lot No. L.40R and L. 46R it is asserted that the plaintiff deposited Rs. 47,535/-as security money but failed to deposit the sale price within time and refused to lift the timber. Therefore, the security deposited by the plaintiff was forfeited under the rules of Auction Sale. Regarding the second auction with respect to lot No. L.40R and L. 46R it is asserted that the plaintiff deposited Rs. 47,535/-as security money but failed to deposit the sale price within time and refused to lift the timber. Therefore, the security deposited by the plaintiff was forfeited under the rules of Auction Sale. With regard to lot No. L. 24 and L. 33 and L. 19 and L. 23 it is asserted that letter No: 1200 dated 24.6.1997 the plaintiff was asked to deposit the sale price of lots but despite request of defendant No. 4 the plaintiff denied to lift L-24 and L-33, but lifted L-19 and L-23. Similarly with respect to lot No. B-59, B 62 and B 72 auction on 20.3.1997 it is asserted that the plaintiff deposited the security amount but even after the verification of the sale did not pay the full sale price hence the security amount was forfeited. It is also asserted that the notice U/s 80 C.P.C. has been served after sixty days. 7. Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that Exhibit-VI/1 is an admitted letter, which has not been considered in the right direction by the learned appellate court. He submits that with regard to lifting of the wooden logs (timber), there was seizure and the seizure of the godown in question and the seizure was lifted on 29.11.1997 and in that view of the matter, within time, the logs were not lifted by the appellant and without considering this aspect of the matter, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and modified the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. He further submits that his part of the contract has been performed by the appellants and the respondents have not performed their part of the contract. In that view of the matter, the appellant is entitled for compensation, in light of Section 53 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. On these grounds, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that this second appeal is having a substantial question of law and it may kindly be admitted. 8. On the other hand, Mr. In that view of the matter, the appellant is entitled for compensation, in light of Section 53 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. On these grounds, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that this second appeal is having a substantial question of law and it may kindly be admitted. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Praveen Akhouri, learned S.C. (Mines)-I appearing for the respondents-State submits that the learned Appellate Court has considered Section 20 of the Sales of Goods Act as well as Section 26 of the said Act and in view of the provisions made therein, the learned appellate court has rightly come to the conclusion that the time is immaterial, when Sales of Goods Act is involved. He further submits that Section 53 of the Indian Contract Act is not attracted in the case of the appellants, as there was no pleading in the plaint for compensation. On these grounds he submits that the appellate court judgment is well reasoned judgment and there is no illegality in the said judgment. 9. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the court has gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as appellate court and finds that the learned appellate court has dealt with Section 20 of the Sales of Goods Act and come to the conclusion that where there is unconditional contract of specific goods in deliverable state of property in the goods passes to the buyer when the contract is made and it is immaterial whether the time of payment of the price or the time of delivery of goods, or both is postponed. Section 26 of the Sales of Goods Act states the principle of risk follows with the property. Once the property in the goods has passed the risk or any deterioration of it shall be on the purchaser. Admittedly the case in hand, the appellant-plaintiff has not claimed for any compensation and pleading to that effect is not there. In that view of the matter, Section 53 of the Indian Contract Act is not attracted. Learned appellate court has dealt with every aspect of the matter elaborately. 10. There is no illegality in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, no relief can be extended to the appellant, as such, this second appeal is dismissed.