IMPORTANT POINT
The civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate ownership disputes over shares, and the evidence supported the sole ownership claim of the wife.

JUDGMENT :

V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.

1. Having lost his claims and contentions in two related suits, the appellant herein preferred these two appeals under section 96 of the CPC. The dispute revolves around the ownership over certain shares of the erstwhile Vysya Bank Limited (presently Kotak Mahindra Bank).

2. Sri Grandhi Varaprasadarao and Smt. Grandhi Seshamamba are husband and wife to each other. Sri Cheka Aadipathirao/appellant is closely related to them. Sri Grandhi Varaprasadarao purchased 1,250 shares of Vysya Bank. Several years thereafter, there was a rights issue that was announced by the bank. Sri Grandhi Varaprasadarao did not purchase the shares offered in the rights issue and he renounced his rights in favour of his wife/Smt. Grandhi Seshamamba. She claims that since her husband renounced the rights issue in her favour, she paid the sale consideration and purchased the plaint schedule mentioned 1250 shares. However, the claim of Sri Cheka Aadipathirao is that these rights issue shares were jointly purchased by Grandhi Seshamamba as the first applicant and himself as the second applicant. It is this claim of him that has given rise to the litigation in the courts.

3. Sri Cheka Aadipathirao filed O.S. No. 556 of 1993 before learned III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur as against Smt. Grandhi Seshamamba/D1 and Messrs. Vysya Bank Limited/D2. He claimed that by forging his signatures Grandhi Seshamamba was attempting to sell away the shares. He sent telegrams to the bank and finding no response he even went to Bangalore and met the officers of D2 Bank and finding no solution with a view to prevent the alleged attempts of Grandhi Seshamamba in sale and transfer of the shares, he filed the suit seeking perpetual injunction restraining them from affecting transfer of the shares mentioned in the plaint schedule. While so, Smt. Grandhi Seshamamba filed O.S. No. 44 of 1994 before learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur stating that with her own funds, she alone purchased the rights issue shares and Sri Cheka Aadipathirao had nothing to do with them and she has been even receiving dividends from her shares exclusively and Sri Cheka Aadipathirao with hand-in-glove with the officers of Vysya Bank surreptitiously got the name of Sri Cheka Aadaipathirao interpolated the share certificates and as a consequence of it the shares sold through D3 and D4 could not materialize and therefore she prayed for declaration that the shares mentioned in the plaint schedule exclusively belonged to her and Sri Cheka Aadipathirao/D1 therein does not have any rights over them and she also prayed for consequential injunction restraining D3 and D4 therein from selling or auctioning or in anyway dealing with plaint schedule share certificates which were in their custody. She also prayed for recovery of Rs.38,600/- allegedly due from D3 towards the balance of sale proceeds of 400 shares. In that O.S. No. 44 of 1994 also, Vysya Bank limited is shown as D2.

4. Since the dispute in both the suits have common facts and law, O.S. No. 556 of 1993 filed by Sri Cheka Aadipathirao was transferred to the court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur where it was renumbered as O.S. No. 726A of 2008. During the pendency of the suits, Sri Grandhi Seshamamba died survived by her husband Sri Grandhi Varaprasadarao. Accordingly, he was brought on record in both the suits and he was arrayed as 2nd plaintiff in O.S. No. 44 of 1994 while he was arrayed as D3 in O.S. No. 726A of 2008.

5. In O.S. No. 726A of 2008 filed by Sri Cheka Aadhipathirao, D1/Smt. G. Seshamamba filed her written statement putting forth her case which is similar to the facts narrated by her in her O.S. No. 44 of 1994 and she sought dismissal of the suit. D2 in that injunction suit is Vysya Bank Limited and it filed its written statement narrating its version that the share certificates were issued in the sole name of Smt. G. Seshamamba and it was a mistake that took place during computeriza