Uttamram - Mayaram Thakar, a flourishing lawyer, made a will, on 10-6-1945 and died childless on 20-8-1946- His widow, Bai Ruxmani, obtained, under the will, inter alia, certain shares the right and title to which are disputed before us. On 6-3-1948, Bai Ruxmani executed a registered gift deed purporting to donate the disputed shares in various limited companies, of which details were given in the gift deed, to her brother, Vasudev Ramchandra Shela!, the appellant before us (hereinafter refeired to as "Shelat"). On 18-4-1948, Bai Ruxmani also expired. But, before she died, she had signed several blank transfer forms, apparently intended to be filled in by donee so as to enable him to obtain the transfer of the donated shares in the registers of the various companies and share certificates in his own name. She had put her signatures in the correct places showing that she meant sign as the transferor of the shares. The shares could not, however, be transferred in the registers of the various companies, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Company law, before the lady's death. Therefore, the respondent before us, Pranlal Jayanand Thakar, a nephew of the late Uttamram Maya.ram Thakar, disputed the claim of the appellant Vasudev Ramchandra Shela! to these shares in an ad.ministration suit which came up before a learned Judge of the Gujarat High Court in second appeal together with other matters. The learned Single Judge held that Shela! was entitled to the shares covered by the registered gift deed to which the blank transfer forms could be related but not to others said to have been orally gifted with which we are not concerned here. The learned Judge having granted leave to file a Letter's Patent Appeal, a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, which considered the rival claims, reversed the decision of the learned Single Judge even with regard to the shares covered by the registered gift deed on the ground that the gift was incomplete for failure to comply with the formalities prescribed by the Companies' Act for "transfer" of shares. It held that there was no equity in favour of Shelat so that he may claim a right to complete what was left incomplete by the donor in her lifetime even though there could be no doubt that Bai Ruxmani had intended to donate the shares to Shelat.
