B.P. Katakey, J.

This appeal by the defendant No.6 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21st January, 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), No.2, Guwahati in Title Appeal No.55/1997 allowing the appeal preferred by the plaintiff thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as against the appellant/defendant No.6 by partly setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30th June, 1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Guwahati in Title Suit No.262/1996 (earlier Title Suit No.149/1989). The respondent No.1 as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.149/1989 initially in the Court of the Assistant District Judge, No.1 at Guwahati, which suit, however, was subsequently transferred to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Guwahati and consequently renumbered as Title Suit No.262/1996, against the present appellant as well as the proforma respondent Nos.2 to 5 praying for the following decree :-

(a) Declaring that the plaintiff is lawful owner of the shares as mentioned in the schedule 'A'.

(b) Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a direction that the defendant No.1 & 2 to cause transfer of the certificates in favour of the plaintiff.

(c) Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to refund of the money spent in purchase of the shares with 18 p.

(c)1. Interest thereon in case above pray are not granted.

(d) A permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 and 2 to make payments of the dividend and instruments of Bonus shares to the defendant No.3 and 4 and mandatory injunction to recall and/or cancel the bonus share if the bonus share if issued by them.

2. During pendency of the suit, an application seeking amendment of the prayer in the plaint was filed by the plaintiff on 6th July, 1993, which was allowed by the learned Trial Judge vide order dated 19th February, 1994. The payer in the plaint as stood after its amendment reads as follows :-

(a) Declaring that the plaintiff is lawful owner of the shares as mentioned in the schedule A.

(b) Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a direction that the defendant No.1 & 2 to cause transfer of the certificates in favour of the plaintiff.

(c) A decree directing the defendant No.1 to cause transfer of the shares as mentioned in the schedule "A? and all bonus share issued against those shares after 18-1-1988 in favour of the plaintiff and to pay all the dividend occurred therein to the plaintiff.

(c)1. In the alternative a decree directing the defendant No.6 to pay to the plaintiff the highest market value of the shares mentioned in the schedule "A? & dividend issued against it till the date payment.

(d) A permanent injunction restraining the defendants No.1 & 2 to make payments of the dividend and instruments of bonus share of the defendant No.3 and 4 and mandatory injunction to recall and/or cancel the bonus share if issued by them.

3. The plaintiff, who was minor and represented by his father and natural guardian, instituted the said suit contending inter-alia that though on 4th February, 1988 he purchased 100 Equity Shares of Brooke Bond India Limited, the defendant No.1, (M/s Brooke Bond India Ltd. subsequently amalgamated with Hindustan Lever Ltd.) under 2(two) share certificates dated 6th December, 1976 and 11th June, 1979 for Rs.8,650/-, of which the defendant Nos.3 and 4, (Mr. Gurudatta Ramarao Yennemadi and Mrs. Sulochana Gurudatta Yennemadi) were the original holders and thereafter, sent the said 2(two) share certificates alongwith the stamp and the signed transfer deeds duly executed by the original share holders, namely the defendant Nos.3 and 4, to the defendant No.1 on 13th April, 1988 by registered post, which was received by the defendant No.2 (M/s Chokesey Bhargava & Co.) on 2nd May, 1988 and acknowledged the receipt thereof, the defendant No.2 on 23rd May, 1988 has informed the plaintiff about refusal to register the transfer on the ground that the validity of the transferred deeds have