JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff No.1 held 800 shares of Defendant No.1 Company. Plaintiff Nos.2 & 3 are the mother and sister of Plaintiff No.1. A certain oral family arrangement was entered into by and between these parties. Plaintiff No.1 agreed to transfer shares in three lots of 300, 300 and 200 to the other family members. This Suit is not concerned with the family arrangement. The relevant Share Transfer Forms were executed and submitted by Plaintiff No.3 acting on behalf of all the parties to their broker, Defendant No.11 along with original share certificates and the transfer fee of Rs.2550/- and other incidental expenses. Defendant No.11 handed over the relevant documents and the fees to Defendant No.12 who is the share transfer agent. Defendant No.12 forwarded the documents to Defendant No.1 Company.
2. It is the case of the Plaintiffs' that the relevant documents did not reach Defendant No.1 but were intercepted during transmission by post and 600 shares have been wrongly transferred to Defendant No.2 and 100 shares to Defendant No.3. Remaining 100 shares have been lost in transit. It is the Plaintiffs' case that they learnt about this after several months when Defendant No.1 Company failed to effect the transfer.
3. In the interregnum, the 600 out of 700 shares shown transferred to Defendant Nos.2 & 3 have been later transferred to Defendant Nos.4 to 8. Defendant Nos.9 & 10 are the brokers of certain parties and have been joined as proper parties. Out of these 500 shares were transferred in favour of Defendant Nos.4 to 8 from Defendant No.2 processed through Defendant No.14 who brokered the said transaction through his sub-broker M/s. Noble Value Securities.
4. Hence 500 of the Suit 800 shares have been sought to be transferred by Defendant No.2 to Defendant Nos.4 to 8. 100 of the Suit 800 shares are not shown to be further transferred by Defendant No.2. 100 of the Suit 800 shares have been sought to be transferred by Defendant No.3 to Defendant No.6. Defendant Nos.3 & 6 have not contested the Suit at all. The contest in the Suit is only in respect of 500 shares. Defendant No.14 has been joined as party- Defendant after the filing of the Suit. Only Defendant Nos.12 & 14 have defended the Suit. Defendant No.12 has supported the Plaintiff's case, in fact by producing the documentary evidence. Defendant No.7, one of the transferees has filed Written Statement but later not defended the Suit. Defendant No.1 would submit to the orders of the Court. Defendant No.2 could not be initially served. The Writ of Summons along with copy of the plaint sent to Defendant No.2 has been returned with the postal remark showing that "he was not residing thereat." He was directed to be served by substituted service. The substituted service upon Defendant No.2 is effected through the District Court. He has been served through bailiff of the Civil Court Senior Division, Nagpur. The duplicate copy of the Writ of Summons has been affixed on the house where he was residing earlier upon the bailiff being informed that he had vacated the house since 1998.
5. The transaction took place in 1997-98. The share certificates and transfer forms were initially given by the Plaintiffs to their broker, Defendant No. 11 in 1997. The further transfers between Defendant Nos.2 & 3 and Defendant Nos.4 to 8 were effected between April and May, 1998. The inquiries with Defendant No.1 Company by the Plaintiffs as well as Defendant No.11 only brought to their knowledge the fact of further transfers which are challenged by the Plaintiffs as illegal and bad on the case that the signatures of Plaintiff No.1 as the transferor on the Share Transfer Forms have been forged.
6. The Plaintiffs have, however, led no direct and positive evidence of the actual transfers sought to be effected amongst themselves and Defendant No.13 as they had simplicitor handed over their documents to their broker for necessary action. Defendant No.12, however, has shown the correspondence entered into by him with Defendant No.1 Company, as also the postal department in Mumbai and Calcutta showing the transmission by post of the documents, their non receipt at the other end as also criminal complaint filed by Defendant No.12 in respect of theft of the share certificates and transfer deeds.
7. 500 of the Suit shares claimed by Defendant No.14 were the shares sought to be transferred by Defendant No.2 to Defendant Nos.4 to 8. Defendant No. 14 claims to have paid market value of the shares to Defendant No.2 on behalf of Defendant Nos.4 to 8 as the broker of Defendant No.2. Defendant No.14 is the only person having knowledge of the said transaction. The onus of proving the transaction propounded by Defendant No.14 is, therefore, only on him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Defendant No. 14 has, therefore, led positive evidence of the transaction which he entered into on behalf of Defendant No.2 for transfer of the 500 Suit shares to Defendant Nos.4 to 8.
8. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that Plaintiff No.1 continues to be the owner of the shares and that Plaintiff No.1 had sought to transfer the shares to Plaintiff Nos.2, 3 and Defendant No.13 only. It is the Plaintiffs' case that the transfers to and from Defendant No.2, shown by Defendant No.1, and claimed by Defendant No.14 are forged and fabricated. The Plaintiffs claim that the signatures of Plaintiff No.1 on the Share Transfer Forms showing transfer to Defendant No.2 differs from and/or are not that of Plaintiff No.1. She has denied executing those transfer forms. The Plaintiffs claim that the transfer deeds are not valid as they are incomplete.
9. It is the case of Defendant No.14, the only contesting Defendant, that the Plaintiffs have not proved their case of any transfer at all by and between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.13 and that the Plaintiffs' case is false and concocted. Mr. Bhate on behalf of Defendant No.14 contended that only after the entire transaction was through and the share certificates were submitted to Defendant No.1 Company for registering the transfers and the name of the ultimate transferee in the Register of Members of Defendant No.1 Company was to be entered, that the Plaintiffs through the share transfer agent, Defendant No.12 sought to initiate action. Defendant No.14, therefore, would contend that the Plaintiffs rightly sought to transfer the shares initially to Defendant Nos.2 & 3.
10. It is seen that the Plaintiffs on the one hand and Defendant No.14 on the other have come out with specific separate cases with regard to the same shares in Defendant No.1 Company. The claim of the Plaintiffs is of having executed and sent through their broker and the share transfer agent, the Share Transfer Forms along with necessary fee in accordance with the procedure and practice, then prevailing for transfer of shares of limited companies. The claim of Defendant No.14 is a separate and independent claim showing the separate contract and transaction between Defendant No.2 on the one hand and Defendant Nos.4 to 8 on the other. It is for both these parties to prove the respective transactions as contended by them by oral and documentary evidence to their knowledge. It may be mentioned that the onus of proving the first transaction is on the Plaintiffs and the onus of proving the later transaction of the later transfers brokered through Defendant No.14 is on Defendant No.14 as the party having specific knowledge of that transaction as required under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
11. The contest in the Suit is, therefore, only with regard to 500 shares. 500 shares claimed by Defendant No.14 have been kept in the custody of the Court Receiver, High Court, Mumbai appointed Receiver of those shares in this Suit. The subsequent dividends issued by Defendant No.1 Company as also certain bonus shares issued have been kept in the custody of the Court Receiver.
12. Both the parties claim the return of the shares as also the additions and accretions thereon. The Plaintiffs, of course, claim a declaration of ownership and the consequent reliefs in respect of all the 800 Suit shares. Defendant No.14 claims only 500 of the Suit shares. The defence of Defendant No.14 as reflected in his Written Statement is in essence a counter-claim. Defendant No.14 has not filed a counter-claim or paid court fees thereon. Even if the Defendant No.14 succeeds in proving a legitimate transaction between Defendant No.2 and Defendant Nos.4 to 8, the Defendant would not be entitled to claim any relief in the Plaintiffs' Suit unless he himself sues, which would be by way of a counter-claim. Consequently Defendant No.14 must value his claim and pay court fees thereon. He was accordingly directed to do so. He has valued the claim at the market value of 500 shares as on date of his Written Statement and paid ad valorum Court fee thereon.
13. Based upon respective cases of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.14, the following issues were framed by Justice Khanwilkar on 21st September, 2007 which are answered as follows :
ISSUES FINDINGS
(i) Whether Plaintiffs prove that the Yes. Plaintiff No.1 was at all material times and continues to be lawful owner of 800 shares of defendant No.1 comprised in Share Certificates bearing Nos. 615880 and 1032807-1032813 and bearing Distinctive Nos.67515301 to 124343852.
(ii) Whether Plaintiffs prove that the Yes. defendant Nos.2 and 4 to 8 and any further or other transferees of 600 shares have not acquired any right or title to 600 shares comprised in Share Certificate Nos.1032808 to 1032813, bearing Distinctive Nos.1214343253 to 124343852.
(iii) Whether Plaintiffs prove that Yes. defendant Nos.3 and 6 and any further or other transferees have not acquired any right or title to 100 shares comprised in Share Certificate No.1032807 bearing Distinctive Nos. 124343153 to 124343252.
(iv) Whether plaintiffs prove that the Yes. names of defendant Nos.2 to 8 or any other person whose names are entered as holders of 700 shares, bearing Certificate Nos.1032807 to 1032813 and bearing Distinctive Nos.124343153 to 124343852 or any part thereof may be deleted from the Register of Holder as shares of defendant No.1.
(v) Whether plaintiffs prove that the Issue is plaintiffs are entitled to receive not from the defendants jointly and pressed severally a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as and hence and by way of damages. not required to be answered.
(vi) Whether defendant No.14 proves that No. the suit is not maintainable for non- joinder of parties.
(vii) Whether defendant No.14 proves that No. 500 shares of defendant No.1 comprised in Certificate Nos.1032808, 1032813, 1032809, 1032810 and 1032811 traded by in NSE Settlement No. 1398/29 stood in the name of defendant No.2.
(viii)Whether defendant No.14 proves that No. he has any claim against defendant No.1 in respect of all or any of the aforesaid 500 shares of defendant No. 1.
(ix) What relief As per final order.
14. Issue Nos.1 & 7 are the material issues. Issue Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 & 8 relate to the reliefs to be considered in the Suit.
15. It is for the Plaintiffs to prove their initial ownership and consequent entitlement to the Suit shares. It is also for them to prove the transaction of transfer claimed by them. Once that is shown it is for Defendant No.14, who specifically claims in that behalf, to prove that the shares, at the time of the transactions entered into by Defendant No.14 on behalf of Defendant No.2, belonged to and were owned by Defendant No.2.
16. It may be mentioned that the initial ownership of Plaintiff No.1 is admitted. In fact it is the case of Defendant No.14 that, as such owner of shares Plaintiff No.1 executed the transfer deeds in favour of Defendant No.2.
17. Plaintiff Nos.1 & 3 have led oral evidence though they have not examined any other independent witness. Defendant No.12 has led independent evidence which supports the Plaintiffs' case. The documentary evidence of Defendant No.12 corroborates the oral evidence of Plaintiff Nos.1 & 3. The oral evidence of Defendant No.4 is sought to be substantiated by his documentary evidence. It may be mentioned that since the Plaintiffs relied upon the service of their broker, Defendant No.11, they have had no documentary evidence whatsoever. It is only because Defendant No. 11 sought to have the transfer effected through the service of the share transfer agent, Defendant No.12 that a record of the transaction by documentary evidence supporting the Plaintiffs' case has been brought on record. The Plaintiffs' evidence shall, therefore, be considered alongside such documentary evidence produced by Defendant No.12. The subsequent transaction contended by Defendant No.14 shall have to be seen alongside the Plaintiffs' case to appreciate the alleged transaction between Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant Nos.2 & 3 as also the subsequent transactions of Defendant No.2 with Defendant Nos.4 to 8 which, being facts to the specific knowledge of Defendant No.14, are brought on record by Defendant No.14.
ISSUE NO.1
18. The fact that initially the Suit shares stood in the name of Plaintiff No.1 is admitted. Hence Issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE NOS.2 & 7 :
19. The oral evidence of Plaintiff Nos.1 & 3 is largely similar. The affidavit of examination-in- chief shows the ownership of the Suit shares in Plaintiff No.1 and claims that the transfer effected in favour of Defendant No.2 is forged and fabricated. Consequent transfer of Defendant No.2 to Defendant Nos.4 to 8 is, therefore, challenged as invalid in law.
20. The essential evidence of Plaintiff No.1 is that she has not signed the Share Transfer Forms in favour of Defendant No.2. Plaintiff No.1 deposed about the family arrangement between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.13 under which the 800 Suit shares were agreed to be transferred in the joint names of these family members. The Suit is not concerned with the family arrangement or its reason.
21. The photo copies of the actual Share Transfer Forms executed by Plaintiff No.1 as the transferee and the other family members in three different combinations as transferees are not produced either by the Plaintiff or Defendant No.12. On the photo copies of the Share Transfer Forms submitted to Defendant No. 1 Company and sent by Defendant No.1 to the Plaintiffs through the share transfer agent the signature is shown to be very close to the signatures of Plaintiff No.1 which are stated to have been forged. The forgery, if any, is therefore rather fine and subtle. Aside from the oral evidence, direct oral evidence of the forgery is not shown. It would have to be imputed only upon circumstantial evidence, if any.
22. Plaintiff No.1 did not take the effort in actually transacting with her broker, Defendant No.11 also. The ministerial work required to be done with the broker has been done by Plaintiff No.3. Consequently aside from the case of the forgery of her signature, the oral evidence of Plaintiff No.1 in the affidavit of examination-in-chief filed by her is not very material. Plaintiff No.3 has filed a similar affidavit of examination-in-chief.
23. Both the Plaintiffs have been cross-examined at length before the Court Commissioner.
24. Though Plaintiff No.1 was the owner of the shares, Plaintiff No.3 actually worked for getting the shares transferred with their broker in view of the family arrangement. Plaintiff Nos.2 & 3 and Defendant No.13 were to be the transferees and are stated to have signed the Share Transfer Forms. The transfer forms were therefore not blank transfer forms. The names of the transferees were to be registered in the Register of Members of Defendant No.1.
25. A lot of cross-examination has been made with regard to the locus of Defendant Nos.2 & 3 and the lack of knowledge of the details of the transaction of Plaintiff No.1. The fact remains that the Plaintiff No.1 was the owner of the shares and not Plaintiff Nos.2 & 3. Plaintiff Nos.2, 3 and Defendant No.13 were to be the owners upon transfer.
26. The transaction is reflected in the documentary evidence contained in the admitted correspondence which has been taken on record by consent. The only aspect that appears to be left out is the photostat copy of the Share Transfer Forms themselves. The Plaintiffs themselves may not keep a copy as they had contracted through broker, Defendant No.11. The broker himself transmitted the shares through the share transfer agent, Defendant No.12. Defendant No.12 himself does not have a copy of the Share Transfer Forms. Consequently the other documentary evidence would be material to consider in respect of the transaction of the Plaintiffs.
27. Even the oral evidence of Defendant No.12 does not matter as the work down by Defendant No.12 is fully reflected in the documentary evidence which would exclude his oral evidence.
28. The fact remains that 800 shares of Defendants were to be transferred. The evidence with regard to whether there were three or more transfer forms is wholly immaterial. The case that 600 shares were transferred to Defendant No.2 and 100 shares were transferred to Defendant No.3 has been stated to be done fraudulently though shown on paper.
29. The documentary evidence of Defendant No.12 must be first considered. These are documents marked Exhibit D-12/1 to D-12/15. Exhibit D-12/1 shows the initial letter of Defendant No.12 dated 03.12.1997 in a prescribed format sent to the Secretary of Defendant No.1. It shows the distinctive numbers of the shares and the names of the transferor and transferees. It is shown to have been sent by registered post. Exhibit D-12/2 shows, amongst others, the packet sent to the agent of Defendant No.1 in Calcutta on 06.12.1997. The document shows the postal stamp. It is seen to have been sent in the ordinary course of business of Defendant No.12. It would carry a presumption of correctness of the fact that it is the same letter dated 03.12.1997 put in post by Defendant No.12 on 06.12.1997 under Section 88 of the Indian Evidence Act.
30. Since it is the evidence of Defendant No.12 that it would take about six months for effectuating the transaction in the company's record and since it was realized then that the transfers are not effected, Defendant No.12 sent his letter dated 12.05.1998 to the Secretary of Defendant No.1 at Calcutta reminding them of the transfer. The said letter marked Exhibit D-12/3 has been replied by Defendant No.1 on 26.05.1998 showing its receipt. The reply shows that the non receipt of the shares sent for transfer. It further shows that 600 of the shares of Plaintiff No.1 were transferred to Defendant No.2 and 100 shares were transferred to Defendant No.3. The receipt of this letter marked Exhibit D-12/4 by Defendant No.12, which is admitted by him, shows the knowledge of Defendant No.12 on behalf of the Plaintiffs of the transaction as it transpired. The further letter dated 16.06.1998 marked Exhibit D-12/5 shows that Defendant No.12 having made inquiries with the Post Office at Karjat, Raigadh District through which the shares were transmitted. The letter bears the rubber stamp of the Post Master of that office. A further letter dated 13.11.1998 marked Exhibit D-12/6 has been shown to have been sent by Defendant No.12 to the Post Master at Calcutta. The registered slip produced along with letter shows that it was put in post in the normal course. The letter has been received by the Post Master at Calcutta who has replied in a cyclostyled format marked Exhibit D-12/7 that the complaint has been forwarded for inquiry. A further letter of the Post Master at Calcutta marked Exhibit D-12/8 acknowledging receipt of the letter dated 13.11.1998 of Defendant No.12 intimates Defendant No.12 that the registered packets sent by Karjat Post Office had not been received and delivered in the relevant period.
31. The aforesaid correspondence which constitutes a chain emanating from Defendant No.12 and received by Defendant No.1 as well as the Postal Authorities shows the inquiries made in respect of transmission by post made by Defendant No.12 initially on 03.12.1997.
32. Since the letter was not delivered, a criminal complaint came to be filed on 26.11.1998 with Karjat Police Station, Raigadh District in writing under the letter marked Exhibit D-12/9 which is received by the relevant police station on 26.11.1998 under its rubber stamp. A further such letter to the police station marked Exhibit D-12/11 puts on record the facts of the transfer and a statement marked Exhibit D-12/12 came to be made by Defendant No.12 in criminal complaint filed which has been certified by the police station.
33. The oral evidence of Defendant No.12 shows the identification and acceptance of the contents of these letters and the complaints as correct. The letters and the complaints accordingly show the efforts taken by Defendant No.12 upon the loss of shares. This proves the transaction of transfer of shares of Plaintiff No.1 to Plaintiff Nos.2 & 3 and Defendant No.13 sent through post by the Telegraph Office and presumed to have been sent to Defendant No. 1 Company as per the presumption required to be drawn under Section 88 of the Indian Evidence Act.
34. The other arm of the aforesaid issues raised in the evidence of Defendant No.14 is to show that 500 of the aforesaid 800 Suit shares validly stood in the name of Defendant No.2. The Plaintiffs have refuted this case. They contend that the transfer in favour of Defendant No.2 is forged, fabricated and fraudulent. Defendant No.14 has sought to show that the transfer was validly effected and accordingly he, on behalf of Defendant No.2, further got the shares transferred to Defendant Nos.4 to 8. He claims to have made payment through his registered sub-broker, M/s. Noble Value Securities to Defendant No.2.
35. Defendant No.14 has led oral evidence. He has produced documents before the Commissioner. They have been serially numbered as Exhibit D-14/1 to D-14/29 but marked for identification. Later the documents have been admitted and accepted as documents on record and would be considered as documents marked in evidence against their numbers for their interpretation in evidence.
36. The oral evidence of Defendant No.14 shows that he was a broker of National Stock Exchange of India (NSE). The agreement with his sub-broker was entered into on 20th June, 1997. There has been a lot of cross-examination upon the constitution of the firm of sub-brokers with which this transaction is not concerned except perhaps for the fact that one of the partners of the firm of sub-brokers was the sister of Defendant No.14. Mr. Shah argued that the firm was not registered with the Stock Exchange as per SEBI Rules at the relevant time. He sought to show certain rules in that behalf to contend that the transaction through an unregistered sub-broker could not have been validly effectuated in law. Para 1 (a) of the plaint shows that Defendant No.14 traded at NSC through his registered sub-broker. The firm of sub-broker was registered later. Nothing turns on that fact.
37. Though it was the first transaction he had with Defendant No.2 which was admittedly a large transaction and though the customer was unknown to him, he did not check the genuineness of Defendant No. 2 because he took a business decision and because he had taken precaution by having a Client Registration Form and supporting proof of identity and residence of Defendant No.2. This supporting proofs contained in the Client Registration Form marked Exhibit D-14/26 along with his documents of address and identity proof shall have to be appreciated. Defendant No.14 had seen Exhibit D-14/26 only during a routine inspection of his sub-broker at Nagpur which he did every quarter and which he did in this case after the transaction. He had not seen or compared the Share Transfer Forms of Defendant No.2 because he had "felt" that he was the registered owner upon Defendant No.1 having stated so.
38. The Form Exhibit D-14/26 exhibits certain anomalies. Defendant No.14 nevertheless did not find it is suspicious to transact the business of Defendant No.2 and to put in his money through his sub-broker as has been his case. After this transaction, he has not had any other transaction with Defendant No.2 who ceased to be his client in 1997 itself. However his status as a client was not actively terminated and is so stated upon the deemed termination of the relationship with Defendant No.2 for having had no trade with him for two years. Defendant No.14 has however not produced any documents or account showing his relationship with Defendant No.2 subsisting in the next year after the Suit transaction.
39. His oral evidence shows that he does not know where Defendant No.2 would be or what was his occupation. Defendant No.14 has been shown an entry of Garware Shipping, another listed company, in the statement of accounts maintained by the sub-broker for the relevant years 01.04.1998 to 31.03.1999. Aside from the entries of Defendant No.1 Company, there are only two other entries. The account for the next year is not produced. The entries of the aforesaid year in the account of Defendant No.2 admittedly shows the transactions of several lacs. Defendant No.14 has been questioned how his sub-broker entered into the transaction of this magnitude with Defendant No.2 who had not shown any occupation.
40. Defendant No.14 has accepted that for giving instructions for his transaction in 1998, Defendant No.2 was personally present and telephoned him. Defendant No.2 was an average client. Defendant No.14 did not recall the introducer of Defendant No.2 but Defendant No.14 had had no further transaction with Defendant No.2. Though Defendant No.14 has deposed that there were transactions with Defendant No.2 prior to 21.04.1998 no such statement of account is produced. The statement of account produced along with confirmation memos shows the first transaction of Defendant No.1 Company only in respect of Suit shares of 21.04.1998. Defendant No.14 has admitted, however, that the confirmation memo dated 16.04.1998 in Exhibit D-14/29 was for the first transaction between Defendant No.2 and the sub-broker. Hence it is seen that there were neither any earlier nor admittedly any later transactions with Defendant No.2 except the Suit transaction and the two transactions of Garware Shipping.
41. Though Defendant No.2 was a new client with the most unattractive credentials, no deposit was also taken from him. That, as per the evidence of Defendant No.14, was in their discretion.
42. Defendant No.14 had not even inquired that Defendant No.2 was in a position to own the shares transacted or made any inquires with regard to his entitlement to sell the shares. He rested satisfied in the knowledge that Defendant No.2 was the owner and was so informed by Defendant No.1.
43. The documents produced by Defendant No.14 are a key to the transaction. Aside from the copies of the share certificates and the copies of the Transfer Forms and the correspondence with regard to the inquires made by the Plaintiffs in respect of the transaction, the material documents produced by Defendant No.14 are the Client Registration Application Form of Defendant No.2, Exhibit D-14/26, the letter of Defendant No.2 sent to Defendant No.1 in respect of signature mismatch relating to the same transfer form sent earlier along with an affidavit executed by Defendant No.2 before the Executive Magistrate, Nagpur and the documents of Defendant No.2 showing his address and identity proof contained in a photo copy of his driving licence and a photo copy of his ration card. These documents would demonstrate the personality and the station in life of Defendant No.2 to be a registered owner of shares worth several lakhs of rupees and having transaction for transfers of those shares.
44. The Client Registration Application Form in printed format is filled in not presumably in the handwriting of Defendant No.2. The photograph of Defendant No.2 is smaller than the size specified in the format. It is shown to be shabbily cut on the top. His residential address is shown to be 817, "Vasali Nagar", Nagpur. His office address is shown to be at 470A, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur. His qualification is shown to be inter H.S.C. pass. The particulars of his bankers show "Kanra Bank". He is shown to be introduced by one Rupesh S. Borkar who has not been verified by or heard since. His identity proof is shown to be in the driving licence and ration card, the numbers of which are shown against the documents.
45. The Client Registration Application Form Exhibit D-14/26 of Defendant No.2 shown to be filled in the handwriting of Defendant No.2 on a printed format is itself dated 16.04.1998 conclusively showing that there could have been no transaction by Defendant No.14 or the sub-broker with Defendant No.2 prior to that date. Consequently the first transaction in the statement of account dated 21.04.1998 is indeed the first ever transaction of Defendant No.2 with the sub- broker and consequently Defendant No.14.
46. The form has been signed by Defendant No.2 with full signature completely different from a short signature put on the Share Transfer Forms earlier sent to Defendant No.1 which had been returned on account of the differing signatures.
47. The documents of identification of Defendant No.2 are the most interesting. His ration card shows his monthly income to be Rs.1000/-. There are six members of the family staying at his residence. The address in the ration card is "Vaishali Nagar" and not "Vasali Nagar" as mentioned in his Form. The reference to the ration card on the reverse of the Form with the number at the foot of the reverse page shows "Rasan Kard". His father's name in the ration card and driving licence is shown to be Shyamsundar. (This is different from his father's name in the Share Transfer Forms showing Defendant No.2 as the transferee where it is shown to be Suresh, which Forms shall be considered presently).
48. A letter written by Defendant No.2 on 5th August, 1998 shows his address C/o. Mohanlal Chouhan at the room number mentioned in the ration card. Hence it is seen Defendant No.2 does not own the said room.
49. Defendant No.2 appears to be rather uneducated and at least semi-illiterate. Though the Form is essentially in the handwriting of Defendant No.2, the educational qualification and the name and address of the introducer are in some other writing. The handwriting of Defendant No.2 shows various spelling errors in the name of the Nagar where he resides, in the name of his bankers as well as in the mention of his ration card at the foot of the reverse page. Defendant No.2 is not even apparently shown to be Inter H.S.C. pass from the aforesaid particulars put by him in his own handwriting.
50. No purpose would be served in taking or keeping the Client Registration Application Form if the financial bonafides of the client could not be verified or if the client would not at least prima facie show himself to be of in sound economical background which would be the basic requirement for a bonafide trading in shares of listed companies.
51. Consequently the nonchalance accepted by Defendant No.14 in verifying the financial background of his new client who he dealt with without taking any deposit and without inspecting his bonafides becomes not only suspect but upon his document is shown to be manifestly illogical for a financial broker to accept.
52. It is in view of this financial position of Defendant No.2 that the account of Defendant No.2 in the books of sub-broker along with confirmation memos showing the transaction must be viewed. The very first transaction is of 16.04.1998 when 200 shares valued at more than Rs. 1 ½ lacs have been sold to him. These have been bought from him the next day along with 200 additional shares. Thereafter on 21.04.1998, 200 further shares have been sold to him followed by further 200 shares sold to him on 23.04.1998. The total of the transactions with Defendant No.2 is represented in the confirmation memo dated 29.04.1998 showing shares worth more Rs.41 lacs dealt on his behalf. All of these transactions have been by clearing. The first ever delivered transaction is of 200 shares bought from him on 30th April, 1998 followed by other deliveries on 5th May, 1998.
53. Defendant No.14 has relied upon the statement of account, part of Exhibit D-14/29 to show that Defendant No.14 paid Rs.4,18,770/- on the account of Defendant No.2 to the sub-broker. He has relied upon the entry dated 23.05.1998 in that behalf. He relies upon the entry to show that it was through Cheque No. 090854 of Vysya Bank. Defendant No.14 has not produced his bank statement certified by his bankers to show his account debited on that date for that amount. He has produced only a certificate of the Vysya Bank Ltd. marked Exhibit D-14/28 showing a letter of the bank dated 26.06.1998 to the sub-broker certifying that the cheque was paid in clearing to Canara Bank, Mahad Branch on 26.05.1998 with regret that the bankers were not in a position to give particulars of the account number of the payee. It may be mentioned that the account number of payee, if it was Defendant No.2 as is contended by Defendant No. 14, was mentioned in the Client Registration Application Form, Exhibit D-14/26 being Account No. 11477. That having not been shown, the letter or the certificate is of little use. It carries no presumption as to its correctness under the Bankers Book Evidence Act which only bank account of Defendant No.14 would have shown by the relevant debit entry certified by the bankers. The letter though marked an exhibit in evidence has not been proved by the examination of its signatory and hence is inadmissible in evidence.
54. Mr. Shah rightly argued that the entry in the Bank account of Defendant No.14 does not represent the actual payment made, but is an entry of adjustment to balance the account at the end of the transaction. The oral evidence of Defendant No.14 in that behalf in the cross-examination shows his acceptance that these were entries adjusted at the end of the year to reconcile the balance in his account. He has explained that he had a weekly settlement system effected at the end of the settlement for each script to show the purchase and sale effected. He has admitted that the debit of Rs.4,18,770/- represented the total payment made to Defendant No.2 in respect of transaction under his statement. He has further stated that the payment to Defendant No.2 was made out of the bank account of the sub-broker. The aforesaid entry was, therefore, not payment made by Defendant No.14 directly to Defendant No.2. Hence the absence of his bank statement becomes clear. Defendant No.14 has not shown the actual payment made in respect of the Suit shares to Defendant No.2. The last entry in the account of Defendant No.2 is indeed only an adjusting accounting entry.
55. Consequently the case of Defendant No.14 that he has beneficial rights to the Suit shares as he had paid valuable consideration for the same is not seen. His claim upon the shares kept in the custody of the Court Receiver is, therefore, not substantiated. In fact the case of the Plaintiffs that the transfer in favour of Defendant No.2 is a fraudulent transaction and that Defendant No.14 traded in shares which were stolen knowing them to be stolen and got forged in the name of a fictitious and unworthy party is made out by the documentary evidence of Defendant No.14 himself.
56. Strangely Defendant No.14 has admittedly not sought to recover the consideration paid on the Suit shares to Defendant No.2 though the shares have been left at large since 1998 when he is stated to have paid the consideration. Indeed Defendant No.14 could not make any such claim as Defendant No.2 has been an unheard of ever since his transaction with Defendant No.14 and his sub-broker in April-May, 1998. Defendant No.2, who is prima-facie seen to have been residing in a slum locality as reflected in the addresses of his residence as well as his office given by him in his Client Registration Application Form was not even able to be served despite the best effort of the Plaintiffs. Indeed the Writ of Summons has been returned by the Postal Authority showing Defendant No. 2 is not residing at his address mentioned in his own Form. Hence directions were passed by this Court to serve him the Writ of Summons by substituted service by affixation at his last known address.
57. The look at the documents of Defendant No.14 is enough to satisfy the Court about the total lack of worth of the transactions defendant No.14 had in respect of shares which initially stood in the name of Plaintiff No.1 in Defendant No.1 Company. Upon seeing this transaction, the oral case of the Plaintiffs can be appreciated not only by the documents of the Plaintiffs produced by Defendant No.12, but from the documents of Defendant No.14 himself.
58. The Share Transfer Forms duly completed in all respects including the names of transferee of Plaintiff No.1 have been lost in transit and understandably never surfaced. The Plaintiff could not have anticipated such fate of their documents. The Plaintiffs not having kept copies on record is, therefore, understandable. Defendant No.12, the share transfer agent is also shown not to have kept copies of the transfer forms signed by Plaintiffs and Defendant No.13 as transferor/transferee as he is shown to have signed the memo of the transfer in the regular course of his business to Defendant No.1 Company as he has done in respect of other such Share Transfer Forms of his other clients in other listed companies.
59. The Share Transfer Forms stated to have been the Transfer Forms signed by Plaintiff No.1 are hence required to be considered. These are the documents relied upon by Defendant No.14. These are the documents which form the source of all the trading transactions of Defendant No.14. These are marked Exhibit P-11 in evidence. The Forms show the signatures of Plaintiff No.1 as the transferor. The Plaintiffs claim that the signature is forged. Defendant No.14 claims that the Plaintiffs sought to sell the shares in open market and had executed blank transfer forms. The shares came to be transferred to Defendant No.2. If that was legitimately done, Plaintiff No.1 would have been paid consideration upon the transfer in open market with Defendant No.2. Defendant No.14 has not shown any consideration paid for the transaction he propounds. Each of the Share Transfer Forms represents Rs.60,000/- worth of shares. Defendant No.2 is incapable and unworthy of such transaction.
60. Surprisingly even the witness on behalf of Plaintiff No.1 in the Share Transfer Forms is a person from Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-77 who has only initialled as a witness and who is stated to be unknown to the Plaintiffs. He is not even from the locality of the Plaintiffs. He has not since been identified. The Share Transfer Forms, essentially relied upon by Defendant No.14 but produced in evidence as Exhibit P-11 annexed to the letter of Defendant No.1 to the Plaintiffs' attorney by which the Plaintiffs received notice of transfer, are indeed shown to be of dubious repute. The Forms do not show that they could have represented the transaction of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs are not shown to have received any consideration thereunder. The shares of Plaintiff No. 1 have remained at that. Plaintiff No.1 continues to be the owner of all the 800 Suit shares transmitted in post by the share transfer agent, Defendant No.12 under instructions of the Plaintiffs' broker, Defendant No.11 for and on behalf of Plaintiff No.1. Hence Issue No.2 is answered in the affirmative, whereas Issue No.7 is answered in the negative.
ISSUE NO.3
61. 100 shares out of the Suit shares are stated to have been transferred by the Plaintiffs similarly to Defendant No.3. This case is not made out as Defendant No.3 has failed to appear in the Suit. Hence Issue No.3 has to be answered in the affirmative for want of any contest by Defendant No.3 or any other Defendants.
ISSUE NO.4
(31) S 2444/99
62. As a corollary to the reasoning in the aforesaid issues which has been answered in favour of the Plaintiffs and against Defendant No.14, the names of Defendant Nos.2-8 or any other person entered in the record of Defendant No.1 in respect of Suit shares are required to be deleted. Hence Issue No.4 is answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.5
63. There is no evidence led with regard to the claim for damages of Rs.8 lacs against any of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs do not press the issue. Hence the Issue is not required to be answered.
ISSUE NO.6
64. Defendant No.14 claims that the sub-broker of Defendant No.14 in the Suit transaction is a necessary party. The necessity of the sub-broker, if at all, is in the claim of Defendant No.14. Defendant No.14 has made a claim in his Written Statement without filing a counter-claim against the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs make no claim upon the sub-broker. He is, therefore, neither a necessary nor a proper party to the Suit. Hence Issue No.6 is answered in the negative.
ISSUE NO.8
65. Defendant No.14 claims 500 shares in Defendant No.1 Company. The claim is made against Defendant No.1. The claim is in respect of shares of Plaintiff No.1. Defendant No.14 claims return of the shares of Plaintiff No.1 from the Court Receiver in whose custody the shares have remained pending the Suit along with all additions and accretions thereto. Defendant No.14 has only filed his Written Statement. He has made a claim therein. The claim is wholly erroneously made. The claim is in the nature of counter-claim. Defendant No.14 is required to value the claim. He failed to value his claim. He nonetheless pressed his claim. He has, therefore, been directed to value his claim in the Suit at the market value of the 500 shares as on the date of his Written Statement. He has fairly valued the claim and paid necessary Court fees thereon. However he has failed to prove that the Suit shares validly stood in the name of Defendant No.2 at the time he transacted with Defendant No.2. The onus of proving the ownership of Defendant No.2 lay upon Defendant No.14 as the facts within his special knowledge. He has indeed produced the best evidence as held in the Privy Council Cases of Murugesam Pillai Vs. Manickavasaka Pandara & Ors. L. R. 1917 Indian Appeals 98 and Rameshwar Singh & Anr. Vs. Bajit Lal Pathak & Ors. A.I.R. 1929 Privy Council 95. The Defendant could not have produced such evidence. However, the evidence has shown that the Suit shares could never have been purchased by Defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 was not even a contender. He was in no financial position to purchase the shares. He is not even seen to have been paid the value of the shares. Defendant No.14 has been unable to to show by positive evidence his case of having paid consideration to Defendant No.2. The entry in his account has been a mere adjusting accounting entry. The debit entry in his bank account has not been shown under the Bankers Book Evidence Act as legally required. Hence Defendant No.14 cannot prove his claim to the Suit shares. Issue No.8 is, therefore, answered in the negative.
ISSUE NO.9
66. Plaintiff No.1 is required to be returned the Suit 800 shares of Defendant No.1 comprised in Share Certificates bearing Nos. 615880 and 1032807-1032813 and bearing Distinctive Nos.67515301 to 124343852 which have been lying with the Court Receiver with all additions and accretions thereon. The Plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of damages claimed. The declaration sought in prayer (a) needs be granted in view of the admission that Plaintiff No.1 was at all material times the lawful owner of the Suit 800 shares. It is also required to be declared that Defendant Nos.4-8 have not acquired any right, title or interest in the Suit shares. Further the Register of Members of Defendant No.1 is required to be rectified to once again show the name of Plaintiff No. 1 as the owner and holder of the Suit shares and as a member of the Company and consequently names of Defendant Nos.2 to 8 or any other persons entered in the Register of Members of Defendant No.1 Company are required to be deleted.
67. Consequently the Suit is made absolute in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). The Plaintiffs shall be handed over the Suit 500 shares lying in the custody of the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay along with all additions and accretions thereto including the bonus shares and the dividends paid by Defendant No.1 Company after four weeks from today. Defendant No.14 shall pay the costs of the Suit fixed at Rs.10,000/- to Plaintiff No.1.
68. Parties shall be returned the documents produced by them upon production of photo copies thereof.
69. Drawn up decree is dispensed with.