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, , 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 Govindaraja Mudaliar v. Alagappa
Thambiran AIR 1926 Mad 911; 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.