1997 (2) TMI 404

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... R.F.A. Nos. 230 and 231 of 1985. The admitted position is that the respondents, Mrs. Surjeet Malhan and Mr. B.K. Malhan, wife and husband respectively, laid two suits for declaration and permanent and mandatory injunction. The learned single judge of the High Court dismissed the suits. But on appeal, the Division Bench has decreed the suits. Thus, these appeals by special leave. The first respondent, Mrs. Surjeet Malhan, held 1,500 shares in total-900 in her name and 600 in the name of other relatives-and 10 preferential shares. The second respondent, B.K. Malhan, had held 2,230 ordinary shares and 64 preferential shares. It would appear that there was an agreement between B.K. Malhan and Shri R.D. Bhagat, the appellant for transfer of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cence did not amount to consent unless Smt. Surjeet Malhan expressly authorised her husband to transfer her shares. The transfer as contemplated in this case is only for a sum of Re. 1. As a consequence, in the eye of law, there is no consideration and, therefore, the transfer agreement is void. The question then is : whether the wife had consented to the transfer? It is an admitted position that she had not given authority by any letter in writing or otherwise to her husband to transfer her shares in favour of Mr. Bhagat. Shri Lekhi sought to rely upon a judgment of this court in Vasudev Ramchandra Shelat v. Pranlal Jayanand Thakar [1974] 2 SCC 323 ; [1975] 45 Comp. Cas. 43 (SC) in which the Privy Council judgment rendered in Maneckji Pest .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sted of his claims, etc., arising from the right owned to such an extent that he may be left with no immediate practical benefit. He remains the owner none the less because his interest will outlast that of other persons in the thing owned. The owner possesses that right which ultimately enables him to enjoy all rights in the thing owned by attracting towards himself those rights in the thing owned which for the time being belong to others, by getting rid of the corresponding burdens." In that case, similar to transfer of shares without being registered in the company, it was held that he was holder of the shares. The ratio therein also has no application to the facts in this case. Accordingly, we hold that the transfer of shares held by Mr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X