Joint shareholding and contributory status: legal representative could not maintain winding-up petition after death of one joint holder.

A person claiming through a deceased joint shareholder in fully paid-up shares was not treated as a contributory for winding-up purposes. The applicable Table A rule recognised the surviving joint holder alone as having title on the death of one joint holder, while a legal representative acquires title only where the shares were solely held by the deceased. Because the shares here were jointly held, the deceased shareholder's interest did not devolve on the petitioner, who therefore could not be regarded as a holder of the shares or as a contributory. The separate six-month registration question was unnecessary to decide.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, claiming through a deceased joint shareholder, became a contributory entitled to maintain a winding-up petition.

Analysis: A contributory includes a person liable to contribute to the assets of the company and also the holder of fully paid-up shares. The petitioner did not claim liability to contribute, but asserted title to the deceased father's interest in jointly held fully paid-up shares. Under the applicable regulations in Table A, on the death of one joint holder, the surviving joint holder alone is recognised as having title to the shares. The legal representative of a deceased member acquires title only where the shares were solely held by the deceased. As the shares here were jointly held, the deceased shareholder's interest did not devolve on the petitioner, and the petitioner could not be treated as a holder of those shares or as a contributory. In view of this finding, the further question under the six-month registration requirement was not necessary to decide.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not a contributory and could not maintain the winding-up petition.

---