AUTHORIZED OFFICER Vs. SURAPANENI VANI PADMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One V. Rosaiah obtained loan from Vijayawada Branch of Vijaya Bank, Eluru Road, the 2nd respondent herein, by mortgaging an item of immovable property. Since he did not repay the borrowed amount, the Authorized Officer of the Bank, the 1st respondent herein, published a sale notice on 7.1.2009, proposing to sell the mortgaged item of property. In the notice, it was mentioned that the premises are in an area of 149.76 Sq.yards, with a house constructed thereon. The respondent participated in the auction and emerged as the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 22,25,000/-. The sale was confirmed and sale certificate was also issued.

(2.) Stating that the area of the premises, on physical verification is found to be only 96 Sq.yards, the respondent got issued a notice to the appellants. A reply was given by the appellants, stating that they are not responsible for the deficiency as to extent Not satisfied with the reply, the respondent filed OS No. 1206 of 2009, in the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, claiming a sum of Rs. 9,18,275.67 ps., being the principal amount of Rs. 8,19,199/-, representing the proportionate cost of the shortfall and interest thereon. She pleaded that once the appellants have mentioned the extent of the plot of land, upon which the building was existing, they were under obligation to ensure that the purchaser is delivered the property according to the specifications. It is stated that the premises were got measured only when the possession was delivered, and when the discrepancy of the extent was brought to the notice of the appellants, they did not make good the loss, suffered by her.

(3.) Appellants filed written-statement. According to them, the extent, as mentioned in the title deeds, deposited with them, as a measure of mortgage; was indicated in the auction notice, and that the respondent was supposed to verify every detail before participating in the auction. An objection was also raised as to the maintainability of the suit, on the ground that the relief, if any, has to be claimed by initiating proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act').