AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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.
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.
We dismiss the appeal with costs.