AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Wadsworth, J.—The preliminary question to be decided is whether the application by the Official Assignee to set aside a number of
alienations made within a period of about one fortnight by the insolvent is bad for multifariousness and whether he should be required to file
separate applications in the case of each alienation. My attention has been drawn to various cases on the subject of clubbing in one proceeding
claims for separate reliefs against a number of different persons. There is a judgment of Panckridge, J., reported in In re Binjraj Harnandrai ILR
(1933) 60 Cal. 1367 in which the practice of applying in one proceeding to set aside a number of alienations is deprecated. As regards that
judgment, there is nothing to show that there was any allegation of conspiracy or collusion between the various alienees. That the Court can try in
one suit the question whether numerous alienations by a trustee to various persons are bad was held in the Full Bench decision reported in C.S.
Govindaraja Mudaliar, Receiver, Sri Komaleswara Temple Properties Vs. Alagappa Thambiran and Others, this decision proceeding on the basis
that, when there is unity of title in the plaintiff and a number of similar alienations, the validity of which depends upon the powers of the trustee, are
all in question, the same evidence and arguments will apply in the case of all these alienations and the various causes of action can conveniently be
tried together.
Now, in the present case the allegation is that the insolvent in the course of about a fortnight made six separate alienations to persons, all of
whom are alleged to be friends, relations and partisans and who are alleged to have acted together in collusion with the insolvent to screen his
properties. It is also alleged that these transactions are the outcome of a general scheme of fraud and conspiracy entered into Between the
insolvent and the respondents. In the face of such allegations of conspiracy and collusion between the various alienees to carry out a
comprehensive scheme of fraud, I do not see how it can be held that the various alienations which are alleged to have been the outcome of this
scheme cannot be attacked in one and the same proceeding. For obviously, in order to establish the case put forward by the Official Assignee, it
will be necessary, as regards each of these alienations, to consider it in its relation to the other alienations. I therefore hold that this application can
properly cover the various alienations which it attacks. The application will be posted for trial in three weeks.