Sibghat Ullab Khan, J.— Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Devendra Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.4, the auction purchaser. The petitioner in the title of the writ petition has described herself as daughter of Mohd. Umar even though she is married and is wife of respondent No.5, Mehfooz Ahmad. (In the entire writ petition also it has nowhere been stated that the petitioner is wife of respondent No.5) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the description is purely malafide.

2. Respondent No.5, Mefooz Ahmad, husband of petitioner and two others took loan of more than Rs.3,00,000 from Minority Financial Development Corporation on an extremely concessional rate of interest i.e. 3 % per year. For recovery of the loan proceedings were initiated against respondent No.5. A house belonging to him was attached on 16.4.2001 and auctioned on 11.9.2001. Respondent No.4, Smt. Saliha Begum was the highest bidder, her bid being Rs.1,25,000, accordingly it was sold to her. Respondent No.5, Mehfooz Ahmad in order to frustrate the recovery proceedings, after the attachment, sold the house in dispute to his wife petitioner on 31.5.2001. Mefoo