JUDGMENT :

C.S.Sudha, J.

This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31/01/2014 in O.S.No.630/2012 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kozhikode. The suit is one for money/compensation. The court below decreed the suit. Hence the defendants have come up in appeal. The sole plaintiff is the respondent herein. The parties in this appeal will be referred to as described in the suit.

2. The defendants (the Bank) on 24/01/2007 through its authorised officer, published Ext.A1 public notice inviting sealed tenders/bids relating to sale of 54 cents of property in Survey No.48/1 in Tirur Taluk, Tanur Village, Keraladheeswarapuram Desom, which property the bank was stated to be in possession pursuant to the proceedings initiated by them under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act) in their capacity as secured creditor. The plaintiff, through her husband, after being shown the property, submitted her bid, namely Ext.A2, stating that she was ready to buy the property for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,05,000/-. In the bid she had also stated that she was making the offer subject to the condition that absolute ownership and possession of the property should be transferred to her without any encumbrance. To this she received Ext.A3 reply dated 05/03/2007 from the Bank informing her that the Bank had invited tenders on the basis of “AS IS WHERE IS” and “AS IS WHAT IS” condition and if she was willing to buy the property on the said condition, she is to inform the Bank of the same on or before 10/03/2007, failing which the Bank would take it that she was not ready to buy the plot. The plaintiff responded by Ext.A4 letter dated 08/03/2007 stating that her tender need only be considered if the Bank could transfer absolute ownership and possession over the entire 54 cents of property without any encumbrance, if not, she was withdrawing from her offer and that her earnest money may be returned. Later when the plaintiff’s husband met the second defendant, he was informed that the Bank had filed a case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri, to take physical possession of the 54 cents of land and that the plaintiff need pay the remaining amount as and when the Bank directed her. Thereafter the plaintiff was contacted by the Bank and informed that they had acquired possession of the entire 54 cents of land as per the order of the CJM, Manjeri, and as such the Bank was ready to sell the property without any encumbrance to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff issued three cheques dated 11/10/2007, 16/10/2007 and 17/10/2007 towards the balance sale consideration and on 21/11/2007 the Bank issued Ext.A5 sale certificate. All the documents relating to the property were then handed over to the plaintiff. On 01/02/2010 Ext.A5 sale certificate was registered. Pursuant to the same when the plaintiff and her husband approached the Village Office for mutation of the property, they were informed that tax would be accepted only for 39.60 cents of property. It was seen that 14.40 cents of property had been sold by the owner, i.e., the judgment debtor to a third party and as such what was transferred to the plaintiff was only 39.60 cents of property and not the entire extent of 54 cents as stated in Ext.A5 sale certificate. The plaintiff on enquiry, came to know that the Bank was well aware of this deficiency in extent based on Ext.A10 report dated 21/11/2007 of the Tahsildar. In the report it is clearly stated that property taken possession of is excluding the property that had been assigned by the judgment debtor. The copy of the report of the Tahsildar had been communicated to the Bank also. Thus, the Bank was well aware of the fact that they did not have the right to sell the entire extent of 54 cents of land to the plaintiff, which fact was deliberately concealed from the plaintiff and an amount of Rs. 32,05,000/- collected from her as sale conside