B. J. DIVAN, M. U. SHAH, J.

( 1 ) [ His Lordship after considering the evidence held that Bai Ruxmani got an absolute estate in the movables conveyed to her by different clauses of the will executed by Uttamram Mayaram Thakar and the giftover in favour of Jamietram under clause 11 was null and void and had no effect in law so far as the movables disposed of by the will were concerned. His Lordship further observed: ]

( 2 ) THAT takes us to the question regarding the effect of the gift deed of Bai Ruxmani in favour of Vasudev Shelat. In this connection we have to consider the question from different angles. Firstly we have to consider as to what is the legal effect of the Registered Gift Deed Ex. 81s by which Bai Ruxmani purported to make a gift of the different shares enumerated therein in favour of her brother Vasudev Shelat. Secondly we have to consider in the light of the clauses of that gift deed as to what is the effect of share-certificates and scripts pertaining to these shares mentioned in the gift deed having been handed over to Vasudev Shelat during the life-time of Bai Ruxmani at or about the time when the registered gift deed Ex. 815 was executed on March 6 1948; and lastly we have to examine as to what is the legal effect of blank transfer forms having been handed over by Bai Ruxmani to Vasudev Shelat between March 6 1948 when the registered gift deed was executed by Bai Ruxmani and April 18 1948 when Bai Ruxmani died. We may mention at this stage that in view of the findings of fact recorded in the Courts below it must be held and the arguments have also proceeded before us on the footing that these different blank transfer forms are genuine and bear the signatures of Bai Ruxmani in the column meant for transferors signature and secondly we must proceed on the footing that there had been no undue influence coercion or fraud etc. when Bai Ruxmani executed the gift deed Ex. 815; and thus we must proceed on the footing that Bai Ruxmani executed the gift deed out of her free will and volition.

( 3 ) AS is clear it is a pure question of law that we have to decide regarding the effect in law so far as the handing over of share-certificates and the execution of the gift deed Ex. 815 are concerned. On behalf of Pranlal Thakar it was contended before us that the shares in a Company a special type of property are capable of being transferred in the special manner prescribed by sec. 28 of the Indian Companies Act 1913 which was then in operation and sec. 34 of the same Act read with Regulations 18 and 19 of Table A in the First Schedule of that Act or the relevant Articles of Association and in no other manner. The second submission on behalf of Pranlal was that a gift can only be made by the donor conveying the property to the donee and completely divesting himself of the property gifted and vesting it in the donee. It was lastly contended in this connection that in case the donor has not completely divested himself of the property gifted and vested it in the donee there is no transfer of ownership and in such an eventuality there is at the highest an agreement to make a gift since by the very nature of the transaction of gift there is no consideration passing from the donee to the donor equity cannot step in and treat that as done which ought to have been done. On the other hand on behalf of Vasudev Shelat it was contended by Mr. S. B. Vakil that a gift is not suspended until registration of transfer in the books of the company actually takes place but all that is necessary to complete the gift is that the donor must do everything in his power to complete the gift and to make it effective. Mr. Vakil put forward-two contentions. . In the first place in support of his stand he that the gift deed Ex. 815 itself was an instrument of transfer which in the light of. the provisions of the Companies. Act and on the interpretation which was contended for by him was sufficient to comply with the requirements of the Company Law and th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document