MOHD MOINUDDIN Vs. MIR AHMED ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Chief Judge, Small Cause Court, Hyderabad, dated 12-8-1963 in SC No. 597 of 1959. It was a suit instituted by the petitioner herein for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 906-12 nP. (I. G.) as being his fees for the cases in which he appeared on behalf of the respondent as a pleader . The petitioner's claim was that the respondent was a cobrother and was in strained circumstances. He had to institute suits against the Government and others for recovery of certain amounts. He volunteered to appear on his behalf in the said suits on the condition that his legal remuneration would be paid to him after the respondent succeeds in the said suits. Plaintiff has stated that both the suits were decreed as a result of his appearing on behalf of the respondent and, therefore, he was entitled to the remuneration. The defendant-respondent , on the other hand, while admitting the relationship stated that in view of the close relationship that existed between the parties, the plaintiff-petitioner had agreed to work without charging any fees in both the suits and thus there was a special contract between the parties that the plaintiff would not be entitled to any legal remuneration. It was also stated that, at one stage, another advocate has to be engaged by the respondent to conduct his case and many important documents had not been marked due to the inexperience and inefficiency of the plaintiff-petitioner .

(2.) The point for determination before the lower court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to the fees. Evidence was adduced by the respondent to substantiate the contention that there was a specific agreement in regard to the non-payment of the remuneration. The lower court relying on the testimony of the evidence adduced by the defendant held that the plaintiff petitioner had agreed to work gratuitously for the defendant out of natural love and affection and thus there was no question of payment of legal remuneration. He further held that so far as O. S. No. 95/ 1954-55 was concerned the claim was time-barred as the fees has been claimed after lapse of nearly four years and in that view, he dismissed the suit with costs. The revision petition is directed against this order .

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the provisions of section 25 of the Contract Act has urged that the contract pleaded by the respondent was void as being without consideration. Section 25 of the Contract Act reads as under :