H K AGGARWAL Vs. P N AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order impugned before this court is the order dated 29.11.2004 vide which application filed by the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code') had been dismissed.

(2.) THE facts as borne out from the record are that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for mandatory and permanent injunction; plaintiff is the son of the defendant No. 1; his relief is against the defendant No. 1 as also defendant No. 2 which is Motors Industries Company Ltd. (MICO); contention is that the grand-father of the plaintiff, namely, Raghubir Saranhad expired on 01.05.1956 his shares i.e. 2000 B Class shares of defendant No. 2 Company devolved upon the plaintiff and a Succession Certificate to the said effect had also been obtained by the plaintiff which is dated 26.11.1956; the details of this succession had been given to the defendant No. 2 Company in the correspondence exchanged with the Company which was as early as 12.04.1957; contention is that the plaintiff was a minor at that time and all his works were being performed by his natural guardian i.e. his father who is now defendant No. 1; the company on this intimation that these shares had now devolved upon the plaintiff in view of this succession certificate had however transferred these shares in the name of defendant No. 1 which was an illegality committed by the defendant No. 2 Company. THE relief claimed in the present suit is that the aforenoted shares be transferred in the name of the plaintiff and a mandatory as also a permanent injunction to the said effect has been sought.

(3.) THE impugned order had noted that the defence set up by the defendant did not in any manner qualify for an unequivocal or an unqualified admission which could entitle the plaintiff for a judgment forthwith. THE defence of limitation had also been set up by the defendant; contention being that the plaintiff had attained majority on 19.10.1964 and all transaction thereafter were being carried out by him independently, the question of his not being aware about the knowhow of these shares was incorrect; on merits also, contention (as noted supra) was that these shares had been purchased by defendant No. 1 for which money had already been paid to the plaintiff; further defence of defendant No. 1 were qua the objections of pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of the court to try this suit; the registered office of defendant No. 2 Company being in Banglore.