Skip to content


Sundararaja Ayyangar Vs. Pattanathusami Tevar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectBanking
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1894)ILR17Mad306
AppellantSundararaja Ayyangar
RespondentPattanathusami Tevar and ors.
Excerpt:
legal practitioners' act - (act xviii of 1879), sections 28, 29--remuneration by promissory note for past professional services rendered under oral, agreements--guardian and ward--services necessary or manifestly beneficial. - .....defendants 1 to 3 for rs. 600, alleged to be due to plaintiff as remuneration for professional services rendered by plaintiff as vakil in criminal cases and proceedings. we agree with the judge that the claim cannot be supported on the special contract evidenced by the promissory note. sections 28 and 29 of the legal practitioners' act require that such agreements should be in writing and filed in court. it appears from the promissory note that it was executed for past services rendered under oral agreements with the fourth defendant.2. it has been held that this is no bar to a decree being passed for such reasonable remuneration as may be found due on the principle of quantum meruit. if, therefore, the fourth defendant should be held to have had authority to bind the minor.....
Judgment:

1. This was a suit upon a promissory note executed by fourth defendant as the guardian of his sister's sons, defendants 1 to 3 for Rs. 600, alleged to be due to plaintiff as remuneration for professional services rendered by plaintiff as vakil in criminal cases and proceedings. We agree with the Judge that the claim cannot be supported on the special contract evidenced by the promissory note. Sections 28 and 29 of the Legal Practitioners' Act require that such agreements should be in writing and filed in Court. It appears from the promissory note that it was executed for past services rendered under oral agreements with the fourth defendant.

2. It has been held that this is no bar to a decree being passed for such reasonable remuneration as may be found due on the principle of quantum meruit. If, therefore, the fourth defendant should be held to have had authority to bind the minor defendants 1, 2, 3 by this contract, we should have considered it necessary to call for a distinct finding as to the amount that plaintiff would be entitled to as reasonable compensation for services rendered. But no contract made by fourth defendant whether as guardian of the minors, or as their next friend can be held to be binding on them unless the services to be rendered were either necessary or manifestly beneficial to the minors The finding of the Judge is that there was no such necessity as to render the contract binding on the minors. Having regard to the objects for which the plaintiff was employed, we do not think they were necessary or manifestly beneficial to the minors. In this view of the case it is not necessary for us to express an opinion as to the competency of the minors' mother to appoint a guardian for her sons. We also observe that a decree has been passed against fourth defendant for the amount claimed by plaintiff and he has preferred no appeal.

3. We dismiss the appeal with costs.


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