Court dismisses petition seeking refund for misdescribed property area in sale notice. Buyers failed to verify before bidding.

The court dismissed the petition seeking a refund of the purchase price due to misdescription of property area in the sale notice. The petitioners purchased a property based on an advertised area but failed to verify it before bidding. Despite provisions allowing inspection and seeking clarification, they did not do so. The court emphasized the principle of "as is where is" and "as is what is," placing responsibility on the purchaser to verify details before bidding. As the petitioners neglected their rights by not inspecting the property, the court found no merit in their claim and dismissed the petition.

---

---

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.

---