Sai Ramesh K. vs Secretary, R. and D. Consultant P. Ltd. and Another

V. Gopala Gowda, J.—The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants in the trial court. For the sake of convenience they are referred to in this judgment as per their rank in the trial court.

The plaintiff filed a suit in O. S. No. 865 of 2000 against the defendants for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from transferring 500 shares to any other person and for a mandatory injunction to direct it to issue the said shares in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that he purchased those shares and sent them to his broker to transfer in his and wife''s name. However, the said shares had been transferred in the name of the second defendant. In those circumstances the suit was filed by the plaintiff.

After trial, the suit was dismissed by the trial court. It has held that the plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that Nereyeth Securities (P.) Ltd., from whom he purchased the shares, was the owner in lawful possession of the share certificates. The trial court considered exhibit P12 the letter written by the first defendant to the plaintiffs broker stating that the shares had been transferred in the name of the second defendant. On the basis of the said letter, it was held that the second defendant purchased the shares from the owner whereas the plaintiff claims that he purchased the shares from the broker without any legal authenticity. The shares had been transferred in the name of the second defendant on the basis of a valid transfer deed. The possibility of the plaintiffs'' broker selling the shares to the second defendant cannot be ruled out. The plaintiff should catch hold of his broker to whom he entrusted the shares for transfer in his name and his wife''s name. Instead of proceeding against his broker, the plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants who had not transacted with him in any manner. Virtually, the suit itself was not maintainable. Therefore, the trial court was justified in dismissing the suit and it is not a fit case for interference.

For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit.