Devan Ramachandran, J.

1. Ingenious and cleverly inventive contentions and submissions are not new in courts-but what has been asserted and claimed by the appellant here really takes the cake.

2. The appellant is a public sector bank concededly coming within the sweep of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, North Parur in O.S.No.347 of 2009, which was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein for return of amounts of money which they claim that they had paid to the bank being under its illegal inducement and because they were made to believe by it that such amounts were legally due to it, while it was not.

3. The defence of the Bank to this claim is, to say the least, stupefying. They admit that respondents 1 and 2 have paid more than what was required of them under the decree, but assert that they are entitled to it because it was paid to them voluntarily and without the respondents 1 and 2 being subject to duress. The Bank concedes that respondents 1 and 2 paid as per the calculation of the decree debt made by it; but predicate that they were empowered to charge and accept more than what the dec