1. This appeal is by the first defendant from the decrees of the courts below setting aside a document, Ext. D-1 executed in her favour by the second defendant, her husband. The trial court found on Issue No. 2 which reads: .

"Whether D1 is not a purchase in good faith and for consideration?"

that the first defendant is not a purchaser in good faith and that the assignment is not supported by consideration. A point was raised before the trial court, which is the subject matter of Issue No. 3, that the suit is not maintainable since it had not been brought as a representative action on behalf of the body of creditors. The trial court took the view that the suit being one to set aside a claim order under the specific provision, R.63 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is unnecessary to bring the action as a representative one on behalf of all the creditors. The lower appellate court, too negatived the contention on the view it took of the nature of the allegations in the plaint. According to that court, the case of the plaintiff was that the document impeached was a sham one not intended to take effect. The lower appellate court also agreed with the Munsiff that