SRAMA RAO Vs. DASARATHY RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant is defendant 2 against whom and another a suit was filed for the recovery of two share certificates marked as Exhibits II and II(a) together with the blank share transfer deed, Ex. I from defendant I, and for declaration that the sale of these shares in favour of defendant 2 is illegal and for permanent injunction restraining defendant 3 from transferring these shares. Both the Courts have decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs.

(2.) Defendant 1 is a broker. Defendant 2 is the purchaser of these shares from defendant 1 and defendant 3 is Sri Krishnarajendra Mills Ltd., to which Company the shares relate. The plaintiffs are three in number. Plaintiff 3 is the widowed mother of plaintiff 2, who is the grandson of plaintiff 1, Dasarathy Rao. The shares were in the names of plaintiffs 2 and 3 and Dasarathy Rao had deposited prior to 2-2-1947 the two share certificates comprising of 14 shares in the Indian Bank Ltd., Branch Office at Mysore. Defendant 1 is said to have approached plaintiff 1 and offered to sell the shares within a week from 2-2-47 and to pay the amount 'within that period or return the shares. Dasarathy Rao addressed a letter to the Indian Bank asking them to hand over to Defendant 1 the two share certificates and the relative transfer deed duly signed by the owners of the shares, viz., plaintiffs 2 and 3. Defendant 1 has passed the voucher Ex. N dated 8-2-47 but failed to comply with the alleged agreement entered into by the plaintiffs. In the amended plaint, the plaintiffs asked for a decree against both defendants 1 and 2 for Rs. 1,162/- with costs and ' current interest. The trial Court decreed the suit against both the defendants. Defendant 2 having appealed, his appeal was dismissed "and he has now preferred this Second Appeal against those decisions.

(3.) The case for the plaintiffs is that defendants 1 and 2 have colluded and made a common cause to defeat the rights' of the plaintiffs to get back the shares. It is, however, admitted that defendant 2 was dealing with them as a mercantile agent and' that since he has not acted in good faith, no title passes to him.