BRAHMA DIN Vs. CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the District Judge of Kanpur concerning the conduct of a Vakil practising in his court. The facts which are not in dispute, are these:

(2.) In the year 1945 the Development Board, Kanpur, acquired certain premises belonging to two persons, Branhmadin and his brother Suraj Prasad, and a sum of Rs. 6,292/2/ was deposited with the District Judge for payment to them as compensation. Brahmadin and Suraj Prasad raised a dispute as to the amount of compensation and also sought to obtain the release of their premises. Their claims were rejected and in 1954 the premises were demolished. Thereafter they applied for payment to them of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 6, 292/2/ only to be informed that this amount had been withdrawn on behalf of Brahma Din by the Vakil in question in the year 1948.

(3.) What happened in 1948 was that a person, who admittedly was not Brahma Din, approached the Vakil, and after informing him that he was Brahma Din and that both his brother Suraj Prasad and his brother's wife were dead, asked the Vakil to act on his behalf and to withdraw the money then on deposit with the District Judge. The Vakil prepared an application on behalf of his client on the 29th March, 1948, for the repayment of the sum of Rs. 3,686/12/ part of the larger sum of Rs. 6,292/ 2/. The application was accompanied by an affidavit sworn by the client on the same date. A further affidavit was sworn by the client on the 18th May, 1948, in support of his claim for the remaining sum of Rs. 2605/6/-. The affidavit in each case is in substantially the same terms, the deponent stating that he was Brahma Din son of Hanuman Vaishya, resident of Jhakar Kati, Kanpur, that he was the owner of the house which had been acquired by the Development Board, that his brother Suraj Prasad and the latter's wife had died in the year 1947, and that he accordingly was the only person entitled to withdraw the amount awarded as compensation. Each of these applications contains an endorsement in the handwriting of the Vakil: "Identified Brahma Din" followed by the signature of the Vakil. On the strength of these affidavits the Vakil withdrew the two sums of Rs. 3,686/12/- and Rs 2,605/6/-and paid them to his client.