The main legal point established in this judgment is that the transfer of shares was invalid as there was no consent or authority from the shareholders. The court emphasized that the decree was valid and enforceable, and objections to the decree could not be entertained at this stage.

P.K. Palli, J.-Before examining the questions, involved in the two Execution Petitions, a brief narration of events, prior thereto, is necessary. Civil Suit No.1 of 1973 was filed by Mrs. Surjeet Malhan whereas Civil Suit No. 2 of 1973 was filed by her husband B.K. Malhan. In the suit filed by Mrs. Malhan, M/s, John Tinson and Co. was im-pleaded as defendant No.1 whereas R.D. Bhagat, Mrs. Salochna Bhagat and B.K. Malhan were added as defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 respectively. In Civil Suit No. 2 filed by B.K Malhan, defendant No. 4 in the earlier suit, Mrs. Malhan was not unleaded. The two suits were consolidated and were dismissed by a common judgment by this Court vide judgment and decree dated March 4, 1985.

2. In the two suits it was alleged by the plaintiffs that M/s. John Tinson and Co. had its registered office at Solan as a Private Ltd. Company In the year 1946 there was some change in the Company in sequence of which both the plaintiffs alongwith their family members and other relations came to acquire all the shares and B K. Malhan became the Managing Director. As per plaintiffs, there were certain financial crisis for which money was required as additional working capital.

3. In the course of events, R.D. Bhagat, defendant, who desired to set up his business in Delhi, was looking for some business premises and after certain negotiations, an agreement is said to have been arrived at between the two on September 11, 1970. In sequence, R.D. Bhagat acquired effective representation on the Board of Directors. Both the plaintiffs were desired by him to pass on their entire share-holdings which were handed over. The terms and conditions in respect of the sale price were to take place on September 12, 1970, Mrs. Malhan held 1500 ordinary shares out of which 900 shares were in her name and 600 shares held by her belonged to others In addition to this, she had 10 preferential shares also. According to her, her husband took from her the shares and blank transfer forms alongwith share-scripts and in sequence, were passed on to R.D. Bhagat.

4 In the suit filed by 8 K Malhan, the pleas taken were identical. He, admittedly, held 2230 ordinary shares and 64 preferential shares in his name. These shares were also handed over to R D. Bhagat. It is said that a token consideration of Re. 1 only was received and a written contract between the parties was to be arrived at on September 12f 1970

5. According to Mrs. Malhan, her husband had no authority from her for handing over the shares to R.D. Bhagat. The entire deal was said to be wholly void and without consideration and the plaintiffs prayed that .the defendants be directed to deliver back the share certificates which they had obtained from them and farther amend the register of share-holders. A decree for permanent injunction was further claimed restraining the defendants from disposing of by sale, lease, mortgage etc. any immovable property owned by the defendant-Company. It was further said by the plaintiffs that after obtaining the possession of these shares in a clandestine manner, R.D. Bhagat and his wife Mrs. Salochna Bhagat got over the control of the Company and became its Directors. They further planned to sell the immovable assets of the Company and have entered into leases in respect of valuable property situated at 54, Janpat New Delhi which is said to be the assets of the Company.

6. The defendants contested the suits raising identical pleas to the effect that the shares were validly transferred/sold. As the Company was in financial crisis, the plaintiffs were keen to sell the shares to R.D. Bhagat for which he agreed The information regarding the purchase of the shares is said to have been given to the Registrar of Companies and some amount is said to have been deposited to meet pressing demands for the creditors It was also said that no written agreement was executed on September 12,1970 and the transaction of sale was completed for consideration of Re. 1.

7. After t