2015 (3) TMI 282 - HC - Indian Laws

Refund of partly purchase price due to difference in area of property - Immovable property purchased from bank which was sold under SARFASI Act, 2002 - Negligent of rights - Valuation report obtained by bank - Held that - As the purchaser the Writ Petitioner No. 1 was obliged to satisfy itself as to title of the property as well as the area of the property put up for sale. The sale was conducted on As is where is and As is what is basis. The sale notice also specified that the intending purchasers can inspect the immovable property and seek clarification with regard thereto. The writ petitioners did not take any inspection and did not seek any clarification. The petitioners cannot be allowed to set up alleged mis-description of area of the flat in the sale notice to claim refund after not having exercising its option to inspect the flat and satisfy themselves as to the area available and other aspects. The contention of the writ petitioners that, the calculation of the super built up area published in the sale notice is without any basis. Firstly, the writ petitioners made no effort to check the actual area of the immovable property put up for sale. They participated in the sale without making such inquiry. The writ petitioners cannot be allowed to urge to that there is a misdescription in the area of the property. Secondly, the Respondent No. 1 obtained a valuation report with regard to the immovable property concerned. The valuer calculated the built up area and the super built up area and gave a basis for such calculation. It is not for the writ petitioners to assail such basis after a concluded deal. Thirdly, it is not for the Writ Court to grant relief to a party which has been negligent of his rights. Writ petition dismissed. - Decided against the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of purchase price based on misdescription of property area in sale notice.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought a refund of the purchase price from the Respondent No. 1, claiming that the property they purchased was misrepresented in terms of its area. The petitioners participated in an auction for a flat based on an advertisement that described the property as having a super built-up area of 2,258 square feet. However, upon obtaining certified copies of the deed of conveyance post-purchase, they discovered that the actual area was 1,807.7 square feet, leading to a difference of 450.3 square feet. The petitioners demanded a refund of the differential amount of Rs. 38,98,944 along with interest at 24% per annum. They argued that they relied on the advertised area and did not inspect the property before bidding. The Respondent No. 1, a bank, contended that a valuation report was obtained which confirmed the super built-up area as 2,258 square feet, as advertised. The court considered the sale notice terms, which allowed inspection of properties by potential buyers and required clarification to be sought if needed. Despite these provisions, the petitioners did not inspect the property or seek clarification before participating in the auction.

The court emphasized that the sale was conducted on an "as is where is" and "as is what is" basis, placing the onus on the purchaser to verify the property's title and area before bidding. Since the petitioners did not inspect the property or seek clarification as allowed by the sale notice, they could not claim a refund based on alleged misrepresentation of the property's area. The court rejected the petitioners' argument that the calculation of the super built-up area lacked basis, noting that they failed to verify the actual area before participating in the sale. Additionally, the court highlighted that the bank had obtained a valuation report supporting the advertised area, and it was not the court's role to grant relief to a party who neglected their rights. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioners' claim. W.P. No. 769 of 2014 was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.