9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Ownership of shares in a bank disputed between plaintiff and defendant. 2. Validity of purchase by plaintiff, a Government servant, under rule 12 of Government Servants' Conduct Rules. 3. Question of intended advancement to deceased son of plaintiff. 4. Limitation period for plaintiff's suit. 5. Recognition of trust by the bank under sections 29 and 33 of the Indian Companies Act. Ownership of Shares: The plaintiff claimed ownership of shares in a bank, which the defendant contested, arguing they belonged to the plaintiff's deceased son. The lower courts initially ruled against the plaintiff, but the District Judge overturned this decision, granting the declaration sought by the plaintiff. The Court upheld the District Judge's decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the defendant's claim and the absence of an intended advancement to the son. Validity of Purchase by Government Servant: The appellant contended that the plaintiff's purchase of shares violated rule 12 of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules, rendering the transaction void under section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. The Court rejected this argument, stating that rule 12 did not impose an absolute prohibition unless the investment conflicted with the duties of the government servant. Citing relevant case law, the Court concluded that the purchase was not illegal or against public policy. Intended Advancement to Deceased Son: The Court analyzed the doctrine of advancement and held that in India, there is no presumption of intended advancement in favor of a child. Relying on precedents and the evidence presented, the Court accepted the lower court's finding that no advancement was intended by the father in favor of the son, thereby confirming the plaintiff's ownership of the shares. Limitation Period for Plaintiff's Suit: The appellant argued that the plaintiff's suit was time-barred, citing the payment of dividends to the son since 1914. However, the Court noted that the plaintiff had contested the ownership from the beginning, and the rejection of his request by the bank in 1918 triggered the limitation period. The Court determined that the suit was not barred by limitation, as it was filed within six years of the bank's denial of the plaintiff's claim. Recognition of Trust by Bank: The appellant raised the issue of the bank's non-recognition of a trust under sections 29 and 33 of the Indian Companies Act. The Court clarified that while the bank was not obligated to recognize a trust, the Court could acknowledge a trust if evidence was presented. The Court highlighted relevant cases and affirmed the plaintiff's right to the shares, dismissing the appeal and awarding costs to the respondent.
|
