Krishnasami vs Kesava and Another

The petitioner was the plaintiff in a Small Cause suit in which he sought to recover from two defendants a sum of Rs. 33-2-0 as principal and

interest due under a promissory note, dated 1st May 1886.

Defendant No. 1, admitting the execution of the note, contended that the Rs. 25 mentioned in it were the fee to be paid to the plaintiff as the first

defendant''s vakil in Original Suit No. 304 of 1886, which suit the plaintiff had withdrawn and that the plaintiff was entitled to no relief; defendant

No. 2 is ex parte. The Munsif considered the following points:

(1) "" Whether the note A is invalid u/s 29 of the Legal Practitioners'' Act?

(2) If so, what is the fair amount that can be awarded to the plaintiff for his labour in Original Suit No. 304 of 1886?

As to the first point the Munsif found Exhibit A to be invalid u/s 29 of the Legal Practitioners'' Act, because it was not filed in Court, in that suit,

and because the sum of Rs. 25 which the plaintiff admits to have been intended as his fee as the first defendant''s vakil in that suit "" is in excess of

the fee allowed in the decree for the defence vakil.

As to the second point the Munsif''s finding is that the sum of Rs. 7 ""is ample for the plaintiff''s advice and labour"" in filing and attending at the

first hearing and then withdrawing the suit.

Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners'' Act (No. XVIII of 1879) provides that ""no agreement entered into by any pleader with any person

retaining or employing him, respecting the amount and manner of payment for the whole or any part of any past or future services, fees, charges, or

disbursements, in respect of business done or to be done by such pleader shall be valid, unless it is made in writing signed by such person, and is

within fifteen days from the day on which it is executed, filed in the District Court or in some Court in which some portion of the business in respect

of which it has been executed, has been or is to be done.

As the promissory note in the present ease was admittedly executed ""in respect of business done or to bedone""by the plaintiff as pleader for the

defendant, and as it was not filed in any Court within fifteen days of its execution as required by the section quoted above, the Munsif is right in

holding it to be invalid and in ascertaining, independently of it, the amount to which the plaintiff is entitled for his labour. What this amount is is a

question of fact which is not open for our consideration u/s 25 of Act IX of 1887.

The Munsif''s decision in no way conflicts with the decision of this Court in Rama v. Kunji ILR 9 Mad. 375, followed by the Allahabad High

Court in Razi-ud-din v. Karim Bakhsh ILR 12 All. 169.

The petition is therefore dismissed.