Fraudulent auction sales violate statutory obligations, leading to void transactions, as demonstrated by misrepresentation and failure to attract fair bidding.

1. This is a suit for a declaration that the sale of property described in Exh. A appended to the plaint in favour of defendant No. 2 brought about by defendant No. 1 is void and reliefs incidental to the declaration.

2. Plaintiff on 20-10-1961 acquired the suit land together with some structures thereon from one Krupal Khetsay. The price agreed to be paid to the vendor was Rupees 40,000/- and plaintiff raised a loan of Rupees 22,000/- from defendant No. 1 to make the purchase - the balance coming from his own sources. To ensure repayment of the sum borrowed from defendant No. 1 together with interest agreed to be paid thereupon, plaintiff passed Exh. S - 1 which is a registered mortgage deed. In the document, plaintiff undertook to repay the mortgage debt along with interest on or before 20th day of October, 1962. In the event of the mortgagor defaulting in the payment of the principal sum of interest amounting to at least Rs. 500/-, the mortgagee was authorised to bring the property to sale under S.69 of the Transfer of Property Act (T.P. Act). A further sum of Rs. 18,000/- was required by the plaintiff in the year 1971. Defendant No. 1 provided the required sum and obtained from plaintiff on 5th April, 1971 the document at Exh. S - 3. This document recited that the time for repayment of the mortgage debt of Rupees 22,000/- plus the advance secured under document at Exh. S - 3 would be repaid by 5th April, 1972, the rate of interest being enhanced to 12% per annum. In the meantime the plaintiff had fallen in arrears in the payment of property taxes on the acquired property together with such additions as had been made by him. Defendant No. 1 on 7-4-1972 gave a notice to the plaintiff calling upon him to pay Rs. 40,000/- plus interest within 3 months, failing which she threatened to put the property to sale without the intervention of a Court as provided for by Exh. S - 1. The Bombay Municipal Corporation had noticed defendant No. 1 about the property tax having run up to more than Rs. 7,000/- and their having been a statutory right of priority over the suit property for the realisation of the same. A copy of this notice was sent by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff. A second notice threatening the sale by public auction was given by defendant No. 1 to plaintiff on 22nd November, 1972. The 1st defendant intimated the Bombay Municipal Corporation on the 3rd January, 1973 of her rights under Exhs. S - 1 and S - 3 and requested that the encumbrances in her favour be mentioned in the proclamation of sale which sale had been threatened by the BMC. The BMC gave an affirmative response to this communication of the 1st defendant. Pursuant to a request made by the plaintiff to postpone the intended sale, the BMC postponed the auction. On 11-4-1973, defendant No. 1 gave one more notice to the plaintiff calling upon him to pay the mortgage debt together with interest within 3 months, failing which the property would be put to sale by public auction. On 11th March, 1974, one more notice was given to the plaintiff intimating that the property would be put to sale by public auction on 11-4-1974. The intended public auction was advertised in various newspapers including the Free Press Journal and Mumbai Samachar. The sale kept on being postponed and in June, 1974, it was re - advertised as scheduled to take place later. Plaintiff then filed Suit No. 4643 of 1974 in the Bombay City Civil Court and an ad interim order restraining the auction was passed on condition that plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- o