AMARENDRA KRISHNA DUTT Vs. MONIMUNJARY DEBL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case at the conclusion of the evidence and the argument, I gave judgment upon the footing that the deceased had, daring his lifetime, transferred certain shares to the defendant, Sreemati Monimunjary Dabi. At the trial, it was a common assumption of both sides, that if the widow could show that the deceased had executed in her favour a certain transfer deed, and had made over the same to her she would be entitled to succeed. Mr. H. D. Boss, for the plaintiff, after my judgment had been given, asked me to re-hear argument upon the case in view of the fast that subsequent consideration had induced him to think that this assumption was wrong. Rather than have the rights of the parties determined according to any other principles than those of law, I assented to having the matter re-opened in argument before me. Now I am quite clear on the fasts of this case that the gift, which the deceased intended of these shares, was intended by him to take effect by way of transfer, and that he did not intend a trust. If, upon the evidence, I thought that it was open to the widow to say that on this question her opportunity for adducing evidence had not been in the circumstances complete, I should not disturb my previous intention, and I should give judgment in her favour. I am, however, satisfied, that in view of the evident given at the hearing, it is not now open to the widow to profess a desire to contend that the gift of shares by her husband was not intended to take effect by way of transfer. As regards the shares in question, the decease husband was the absolute registered owner if one may apply language which is not strictly applicable even in England except to land, one may say that ha was the owner of the legal as well a, the equitable interest in the shares. He executed the transfer deed, which is in evident, and as I have held, he gave possession of it to his Wife. she however did not till after his death, complete the trans-far deed , nor was it in his lifetime presented for registration with the Company. In my opinion the gift was not perfected. The donor must have, done everything which, awarding to the nature of the property comprised in the settlement was necessary to be done to transfer the property , Mitroy V/s. Lord (1) (1862) 4 De G F & j 261 : 31 L. J. Ch.798 : 8 jur.(N. S.) 806 : 7 L. T. 178 : 45 E. R.1185;135 R. R.135., Richards v. Delbridge (2) (1871) 18 Eq. H 43 L. J. ch. 459 : 22 W. R. 584., The donce much in the case of shares such as those with which I am concerned (the Articles of Association of the Company had been put in evidence), have a Present, absolute and unconditional right to have the transfer registered: Societe Generate de Paris V/s. waller(3)(1888)11,App. Cas. 20 at p. 28 : 55 L. J. Q. B. 169 : 54 L.T. 389 : 34 W. R. 662.Nanney V/s. Morgan(4)(1888) 37,Ch. 346 : 57 L. J. ch. 311 : 58 L. T. 238 : 36 W.R. 677. Moore V/s. North Western Bank (5)(1891) 2 Ch.599 : 60 L. J. Ch. 627 : 64 L. T. 238 : 36 W. R. 93, Ireland V/s. Hart (6)(1902) 2 Ch. 522 : 71 L. J. Ch. 276 : 86 L. T. 385 : 50 W. K. 315 : 9 Manson 209 : 18 T. L. R. 253.

(2.) In these circumstances, I must, in this case, apply the principle that there is no equity to perfect an imperfect gift, and hat the gift, having been intended to take effect by waj of transfer, the Court will not hold the intended transfer to operate as a declaration of trust. The evidence with regard to the disposition of the dividend does not alter this position and is no stonger than it was in the case of Milory V/s. Lord (1) Two cases, Merbai V/s. Ferozbai (7) 5 B. 268 3 Ind. Dec, (n.'s ) 178, Bhaskar Purshotan V/s. Sarawitibai (8) 17 B. 486 : 9 Ind. Dec. (n. s.) 316. Were cited to me from Bombay, but, in so far as they qualify or whittle down the principles which I have endeavoured to explain I am not prepared to follow them. The fact this that, unless those principles be adhered to, every imperfect transfer will have to be made effectual by being construed as a perfect trust

(3.) In these circumstance, the result is that the plaintiffs must succeed in the after the first day of the hearing must be pad by the plaintiff to the defendants As regards the costs of suit up to and including, the first day hearing, those must be paid by the defendant, Sreemati Monimunjary Debi. I am not preP5red ? make other defendants pay any costs