Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. - This Appeal is against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court at Madras, in O.S. No. 105 of 1953. The plaintiff who is aggrieved is the appellant. The suit was originally brought for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,111-4-0 together with interest at 6 per cent. per annum from 12th January, 1953, till date of payment. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant purchased 123 shares of the New Guardian Life Insurance Company, Madras, through the defendant-respondent for a sum of Rs. 7,500. Bought and sold notes appeared to have been exchanged between the parties. After the scrips were delivered to the plaintiff-appellant by the defendant respondent, it was discovered that the shares belonged to a minor, Panjanathan, on whose behalf the father Ramanathan Chettiar had acted but the fact remains that these shares were already pledged to the defendant-respondent for some amounts due by Ramanathan Chettiar and Sithal Achi. After the scrips were delivered, the plaintiff wrote to the New Guardian Life Insurance Company to effect a transfer of the shares but the said company, however, found that the shares belonged to a minor and that unless the prescribed formalities were completed as laid down in the rules governing transfer of shares, the New Guardian Life Insurance Company was not in a position to effect the transfer. Thereupon the appellant wrote to respondents for rectifying the defects so as to get the transfer effected in the legal form. To this the respondents replied that they were merely acting as brokers and were not responsible for any defects once they had delivered the shares to the appellants and that if there were defects, it was the duty of the appellants to get the defects removed and get the transfers effected by the company concerned. There was prolonged correspondence between the appellants and defendants. But it did not prove of any avail. Ultimately the plaintiffs filed the suit from which this appeal has risen. There was prolonged correspondence between the appellants and defendants. But it did not prove of any avail. Ultimately the plaintiffs filed the suit from which this appeal has risen. The learned City Civil Judge after framing the necessary issues in the suit found that the defendants acted merely as brokers and that the plaintiff purchased the shares from the owner, namely, Panchanathan, a twelve-year old minor, who is now stated to have attained majority, and that therefore the transaction was between the plaintiff and the owner of the shares and that the brokers were not responsible, once they had brought the two parties together, they having merely acted as brokers. In the result the suit was dismissed by the learned City Civil Judge directing each party to bear his own costs. Against this decision, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. On other issues with regard to the rate of dividend and interest, the learned City Civil Judge gave his findings in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore appealed against the decision. We have heard both counsel for the plaintiffs as well as the defendants and we think that the view taken by the learned City Civil Judge that the defendants became absolved from all responsibilities, the moment they delivered the scrip to the plaintiffs, does not appear to be sound. The learned Judge has not considered in their proper perspective the rules governing the stock exchange in respect of the transaction with regard to shares. Rule 7 of the Rules and Regulations of the Madras Stock Exchange Association, Limited, is to the following effect. “ Except to the extent and in the manner provided for by these Rules every contract for purchase or sale of shares or other securities whether made between two members or between a member and a non-member shall be deemed to have been made as between principals and each party thereto shall be bound to fulfil the same and entitled to claim performance and institute or maintain legal proceedings in his name as principal” . In spite of the fact that these rules had been placed before the learned City Civil Judge, the learned City Civil Judge would appear to have misconstrued the scope of the rule and also its application to the facts of the present case. In spite of the fact that these rules had been placed before the learned City Civil Judge, the learned City Civil Judge would appear to have misconstrued the scope of the rule and also its application to the facts of the present case. He has been misled into an error when he did not apply the rule as he thought that the rule came into effect long after the transaction. It appears to us that this rule has been in force ever since 1943, though there is lacuna in the rules of the stock exchange-omission to mention in the body of the rules the date from which the rules came into force. The learned City Civil Judge has also overlooked the scope of Rule 44 that applies to the present case. Rule 44 is in the following terms:- “ If a buyer to whom the documents have been delivered and who has paid for the same gives intimation in writing to the party who delivered them of his objection as to their title, regularity or genuineness as soon as it comes to his knowledge, the party who delivered them shall within ten days of such intimation, either remove any irregularity or establish the title or genuineness of the documents as the case may be or replace the same by valid documents, provided the documents have been lodged with the Company for transfer within the period mentioned in the previous rule. In the event of such member failing to deliver such other documents or remedy the defects, within the period of ten days referred to above, he shall refund on return of the defective documents the moneys paid against such documents.” The import of this Rule is that in case there is any irregularity or defect in title or the genuineness of the scrips, etc., it is the duty of the brokers to rectify the defects This has not been done by the Respondents in spite of their having been called by the appellants in the course of the correspondence after the scrips were delivered. The defendants appear to have been throughout under the wrong impression that they were merely acting as brokers and that they were in no way responsible for the remedying of any defects or rectifying any irregularity in the transaction which they bring about between themselves and the purchaser. The defendants appear to have been throughout under the wrong impression that they were merely acting as brokers and that they were in no way responsible for the remedying of any defects or rectifying any irregularity in the transaction which they bring about between themselves and the purchaser. They seemed to have been under the impression that after delivery of the scrips, their responsibility ceased and they have nothing further to do. This is entirely not in accordance with the rules which govern transactions of this nature, regarding the shares of public limited concerns. There is another point which has to be considered in this connection, namely, that if the plaintiffs had returned the scrips immediately to the respondent, they would have been justified in claiming that the respondent should substitute fresh shares of the same limited concern in place of the ones that were found defective by reason of the fact that they belonged to a minor. But in so far as the plaintiffs did not deliver back the scrips to the respondents the plaintiffs cannot be right in complaining against the failure of the defendants to substitute fresh scrips in place of the ones that were found defective. However, it does not absolve the respondents from placing at the disposal of the plaintiffs in return for the amount received from them valid and legally effective shares or in default pay back the amount received by them which appears to have remained with them from the date of the suit till the disposal of this appeal. In these circumstances we do not think that the suit has in any way been misconceived or that it was liable to be dismissed as has been done Try the learned City Civil Judge. On a consideration of the entire circumstances that obtain in this case we think the proper order to be made is to direct the plaintiff to return immediately the scrips along with the share transfer certificates, if they are not already returned, to the respondents and to direct the Respondents to refund to the Appellants the sum of Rs. 7,500 received by them with interest at 3 per cent. per annum from the date of its receipt by them till the date of this judgment. From today onwards the rate of interest on the said sum of Rs. 7,500 will be 6 per cent. 7,500 received by them with interest at 3 per cent. per annum from the date of its receipt by them till the date of this judgment. From today onwards the rate of interest on the said sum of Rs. 7,500 will be 6 per cent. per annum till such period as the amount is paid to the plaintiffs. The dividend, if any, declared by the company will be received and enjoyed by the respondents. As far as costs are concerned, we direct that the plaintiffs be entitled only to one half of the entire costs in the lower Court and in this appeal. The learned counsel for the minor Panchanathan who has been given notice of the appeal submits that he should be given some amount towards his fees. We do not think that there is any justification for awarding any fees in the circumstances of the case. A decree will issue in terms stated above. This case having been set down for being mentioned the Court made the following Order.- The thing has come up for mention today. The scrips should be handed over to the first Respondent, Trojan and Company, and the first Respondent, Trojan &38; Company, alone will be liable to pay the costs ordered by us. No other thing in the judgment in the Appeal calls for any modification. P.R.N. ------------- Appeal allowed.