Skip to content


Anantayya and ors. Vs. Padmayya Heggade and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1892)2MLJ247
AppellantAnantayya and ors.
RespondentPadmayya Heggade and ors.
Cases ReferredKrishnasami v. Kesava I. L. R.
Excerpt:
- .....note is merely the previous note a, which was executed by grurumanna when employing plaintiffs' father as pleader for the defendants in the suits which they were defending. such being the case the lower courts are right in holding the agreement to be invalid under section 28 of the act by reason of its not having been filed in court.2. the next contention is that even if the agreement is invalid, plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for the legal fee or at least for the amount admitted by defendants to be due; and in support of this contention reference is made to krishnasami v. kesava i. l. r. 14 m, 63. as was observed by straight j. in razi-ud-din v. karim bakhsh i. l. r. 12 a 109, the object of section 28 is only 'to protect necessitous, improvident or careless litigants from being.....
Judgment:

1. The first contention on behalf of the appellants is that Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners' Act is inapplicable to this case in that Grurumanna Heggade by whom the original pro-note was executed was not the party to the suit in which the plaintiffs' father acted as pleader on behalf of the defendants. The section is however too comprehensive to limit it to agreements entered into by pleaders with the parties themselves. The words include all agreements entered into by a pleader with 'any person retaining or employing him in respect of business (done or) to be done by such pleader.' The consideration for the plaint promissory note is merely the previous note A, which was executed by Grurumanna when employing plaintiffs' father as pleader for the defendants in the suits which they were defending. Such being the case the lower courts are right in holding the agreement to be invalid under Section 28 of the Act by reason of its not having been filed in court.

2. The next contention is that even if the agreement is invalid, plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for the legal fee or at least for the amount admitted by defendants to be due; and in support of this contention reference is made to Krishnasami v. Kesava I. L. R. 14 M, 63. As was observed by Straight J. in Razi-ud-din v. Karim Bakhsh I. L. R. 12 A 109, the object of Section 28 is only 'to protect necessitous, improvident or careless litigants from being taken advantage of by unscrupulous legal advisers and provision is therefore made for remuneration in excess of and apart from the amount allowable in taxation of the costs' whereas Section 29 recognises the right of a pleader to recover the amount due to him independently of such agreement for 'the costs, fees, charges and disbursements in respect of the business done.'

3. The Subordinate Judge must therefore be asked to find what is the amount legally due to the late Krishna Pai as pleader for the defendants independently of the promissory notes A and B.

4. The finding to be submitted within one month from the date of the receipt of this order.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //