Share transfer disputes require proof of notified transfer and necessary parties; unproved title defeats declaration and injunction.

A claim for declaration and injunction over disputed shares failed because the plaintiff did not prove that the company had been given written notice of any valid transfer in his favour. In the absence of such intimation, the company could rely on the share register and recognise the recorded shareholders, and transfer could not be compelled on assertion of purchase alone. The suit also failed for non-joinder of the brokers and original shareholders through whom the alleged transfer was said to have been made, as they were necessary to establish the chain of title and basis for substitution of the plaintiff's name. The dismissal of the suit was confirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration and injunction restraining the company from recognising or transferring the disputed shares and from paying dividends to the recorded shareholders; (ii) whether the suit was liable to fail for non-joinder of the brokers and original shareholders from whom the shares were allegedly purchased.

Issue (i): whether the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration and injunction restraining the company from recognising or transferring the disputed shares and from paying dividends to the recorded shareholders.

Analysis: The plaintiff failed to establish that the company had been informed in writing of any transfer in his favour by the original shareholders or brokers. In the absence of such intimation, the company was entitled to continue to act on the share register and to recognise the persons in whose names the shares stood. A transfer could not be compelled merely on the plaintiff's assertion of purchase, and the claimed relief would have required proof of a valid and notified transfer.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to the declaration or injunction sought, and the finding was against the plaintiff.

Issue (ii): whether the suit was liable to fail for non-joinder of the brokers and original shareholders from whom the shares were allegedly purchased.

Analysis: The brokers and original shareholders were the persons through whom the alleged transfer had been made, yet they were not impleaded and no material was produced to show that they had notified the company of any transfer. Their presence was necessary to establish the alleged chain of title and the basis for substitution of the plaintiff's name in place of the recorded shareholders.

Conclusion: The suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, and the finding was against the plaintiff.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed, and the dismissal of the suit for declaration and injunction stood confirmed.

---