In Re: L, a Pleader, Rajam, M. Narayanamurti

Leach, C.J.—We are called upon to consider the report of the District Judge of Vizagapatam on charges of professional misconduct made

against Mr. L. a pleader practicing in the District Munsif''s Court at Rajam. The petitioner is the son of one Mantripragada Kondamma, and in

O.S. No. 657 of 1919 of the Court of the District Munsif of Rajam he sued his mother for an account of the management of his estate during his

minority, and on 15th December 1920 obtained a money decree against her. In O.S. No. 834 of 1924 of the same Court the mother sued the son

for the recovery of maintenance due to her and for future maintenance. The suit was decreed, but the petitioner appealed first to the District Court

and then to the High Court. The appeals were dismissed. Kondamma had sued in forma pauperis and in dismissing the second appeal this Court

directed that half the court-fee should be paid by her and half by her son.

The petitioner paid his half of the court-fee, but his mother failed to pay her half and Government attached the decree which she had obtained

against her son. The respondent acted for the mother in the suit against the son and was in fact her legal adviser during the years 1924-25. In 1925

he agreed to act for the son, and on 14th December 1932 he filed an application in execution proceedings arising out of the decree obtained by the

son against the mother in O.S. No. 657 of 1919. This application was filed the day before the 12 years period of limitation expired.

The fact that the respondent was acting for the son against the mother did not prevent him from acting for the mother against the son in matters

connected with her suit for maintenance. On 18th January 1935 he filed in O.S. No. 834 of 1924 a memorandum which purported to show what

payments had been made by the son towards the decree obtained by the mother. The payments mentioned in the memorandum were Rs. 375-5-0

on 28th June 1928, Rs. 83-12-0 on 20th March 1928, Rupees 469-13-6 on 21st December 1932 and Rs. 94-1-2 on 1st November 1933. The

memorandum concluded with a statement to the effect that after giving credit for these payments the amount due to the decree-holder, that is to the

mother was Rs. 282-9-8. This was not correct because the figure Rs. 469-13-6 against the date 21st December 1932 should have been Rs. 639-

2-2. In other words there was an under, statement of the position by Rupees 169-4-8. There was not due by the son the sum of Rs. 282-9-8 but

only the sum of Rs. 113-5-0.

On 21st July 1935 the respondent bought the mother''s decree against her son. The deed of transfer is Ex. 13. It stated that there was due Rs.

376-10-0 by the son to the mother under her decree and the decree was transferred to the respondent for this amount. Having got the mother''s

decree transferred to him, the respondent then proceeded to execute it against the son. He attached a house belonging to the son and bought the

pro-party in at the Court auction. The sale however was set aside on the son paying into the Court the amount due under the decree. In the

execution proceedings the respondent did not make the adjustment in respect of the Rs. 169-4-8 but treated it as being owing by the petitioner

which of course was not the case.

As a result of these execution proceedings, the petitioner preferred the complaint in respect of which the charge was framed by the District

Munsif of Rajam. There ware two charges which may be summarized as follows. (1) The respondent had been guilty of professional misconduct in

acting for the petitioner when he had acted for the petitioner''s mother against the petitioner. (2) He had with dishonest intent obtained an

assignment of the mother''s decree and in executing it had suppressed payments made in reduction, thereby committing a breach of trust against the

petitioner and a fraud on the Court. The District Munsif held that the charges had not been proved and consequently found for the respondent. The

record and the report of the District Munsif were then submitted to the District Judge who made his own report thereon. The District Judge

considered that the respondent had been guilty of unprofessional conduct in acting for the son in the circumstances of the case and that he also had

been guilty of unprofessional conduct in purchasing the mother''s decree and executing it for a sum in excess of what was due. These are the

findings which we have to consider.

We consider that the respondent was not guilty of professional misconduct in filing the petition in execution of the petitioner''s decree. The

petitioner''s suit had nothing to do with the mother''s suit. It would have shown a spirit more in keeping with the traditions of the profession if the

respondent had not acted for the petitioner, but we cannot say that there was anything professionally wrong in so doing. There was no necessity for

him to obtain the consent of the petitioner''s mother, and here was no likelihood of having to make use of anything obtained by him when acting for

the mother.

The second charge however stands on an entirely different footing. Rule 16 of the Rules of this Court framed under the Legal Practitioners Act,

1879, states that practitioners of Courts subordinate to the High Court are strictly prohibited from purchasing from their clients or from any other

person, any interest in any decree passed by the Court in which they practice. The rules were published on 10th December 1934, but as long ago

as 9th June 1870 the High Court had issued a circular to the same effect. Section 136, T.P. Act, prohibits legal practitioners from purchasing or

trafficking in any actionable claim and states that no Court of justice shall enforce at the instance of the legal practitioner any such actionable claim.

A decree does not come within the category of actionable claims, but the principle involved is the same. The respondent therefore knew or must

be deemed to have known that he was acting contrary to the directions of this Court when he purchased the mother''s decree against her son. The

learned District Judge expresses the opinion that a vakil with sound professional ideas would have revolted instinctively at the idea of taking such a

transfer, and I am in agreement with this statement. Not only did the respondent purchase this decree from Kondamma, but he executed it knowing

that there was a mistake in the suit register, and that he was not entitled to the sum of Rs. 376-10-0 but that sum less Rs. 169-4-8. That he knew

the true position is shown by Ex. B, a letter written on 11th October 1933, at the instance of the respondent to the petitioner. In this letter he

specifically refers to the sum of Rupees 639-2-2 which was the amount which should have been recorded on 18th January 1935 instead of the

sum of Rupees 469-13-6. In this letter it is stated that ""If you pay the said amount (Rs. 123-9-9) accordingly, your decree in full, as well as Rs.

762-11-11 due by you to her up to date, will be satisfied"". This shows that ha knew the exact position on 11th October 1933 and that the

petitioner had only to pay Rs. 123-9-9 to clear off his liability under the mother''s decree at that date. That sum of Rs. 123-9-9 was admittedly

paid on 30th October 1933.

The respondent has denied the genuineness of Ex. B, and it has been suggested in the course of the arguments that it was forged for the

purposes of these proceedings. The respondent denied all know, ledge of the documents, but he called his clerk who said that it was in the hand

writing of his (the clerk''s) son-in-law. The son-in-law was then called and he admitted having written the letter and said that he did so at the

instructions of the petitioner. If the petitioner were wishing to forge a letter for the purposes of these proceedings (which would in itself be an

extraordinary thing to do) I do not consider that he would cause a letter of the nature of Ex. B to be fabricated; moreover, Ex. B sets out in great

detail information which could only have been in the possession of the respondent or of his clerk. The letter is a very lengthy one and was written

for the purpose of obtaining payment of fees due by the petitioner to the respondent. It was referred to in the complaint itself and I consider that

the suggestion that the petitioner induced the son-in-law of the respondent''s clerk to fabricate it is too grotesque for serious consideration. We

have no hesitation in regarding Ex. B as a genuine document, which means that the respondent instituted execution proceedings against his own

client with full knowledge of the real position and obtained from him a larger sum than was in fact due by him. This in itself amounts to

unprofessional conduct. But when it is coupled with the fact that he was executing the decree which he himself had bought in direct contravention

of the rules framed by this Court under the Legal Practitioners Act the offence grows in seriousness. The respondent is guilty of grave professional

misconduct, and we are unable to accept the recommendation of the District Judge that he should be suspended merely for a period of one month

and twenty two days, the period during which he was actually prevented from practicing by the administrative orders of this Court. We consider

that the offence is one which should be punished by suspension from practice for a much longer period than this and we direct that the respondent

be suspended from practice from now until the end of the next summer vacation of the District Munsif''s Court of Rajam.

We also direct that the respondent should pay to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 180, representing the amount of Rs. 169-4-8 which he recovered

from the petitioner in excess of the true amount and interest thereon. The respondent''s sanad will not in any event be issued to him until he has paid

this amount.