RATNAMMA BREGANZA Vs. ABDUL KHADER KHURESHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case relates to a complaint filed against an advocate, by one Ratnamma on 18-12-1953. The matter was enquired into by the Tribunal of the Bar Council of the Hyderabad High Court but before the aforesaid Tribunal could submit its findings to the High Court, the Hyderabad High Court was abolished and along with it the Bar Council. After the Andhra Pradesh High Court came into being, the said complaint was referred to the Bar Council of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which held a fresh enquiry and has now submitted its findings.

(2.) The brief facts relating to the case are: The respondent herein, an advocate practicing in Hyderabad was engaged by the complainant to appear before the Court of Wards, Hyderabad, in the matter of an application filed by one Baptista, praying that the estate of one Braganza who died, be taken under the supervision of the Court of Wards, inasmuch as one Ratnamma in possession of the properties was mismanaging the property to the detriment of the minor daughter of the deceased Braganza. The petitioner Baptista professed to-be a close relation of the minor daughter and made it appear that he was trying to safeguard the interests of the minor. Notice was issued to the widow Ratnamma and after a summary enquiry the Court of Wards dismissed the application on 13-3-1952.

(3.) The complainant Ratnamma stated that about 9 months later she engaged the services of the respondent advocate for the purpose of obtaining a succession certificate to the estate of the late Braganza and that she gave him all instructions and handed over the relevant documents and that the advocate demanded a sum of Rs. 1,200.00 on account of fees and that this sum was paid by her on 2-2-1953 by selling away some furniture. The further allegation of the complainant was that one Sundaramma, her sister, entered into a conspiracy with the daughter of Braganza, Miss Maria and arranged to get an application for succession certificate filed with regard to the property left by Braganza only on behalf of Maria, the daughter, ignoring the complainant; that the respondent instead of filing an application for succession certificate on behalf of the complainant, filed the same on behalf of Maria alone. On these allegations the complainant charged the respondent advocate with professional misconduct and prayed that he be removed from practice and also asked" for the refund of the amount paid by her to the advocate. Notice was issued to the respondent and he filed a counter denying the allegations made by the complainant and stated that he had been engaged for obtaining a succession certificate only on behalf of Maria and that the fees and the amount for expenses were paid only by Maria and not by Ratnamma. Three witnesses were examined by the complainant including herself while the advocate himself went into the box and examined Sunder-amma and Maria. On this evidence the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it had been established that the respondent was engaged by both Ratnamma and Maria for the purposes of applying for succession certificate to the estate of Braganza on behalf of both Ratnamma and Maria. With regard to the question as to who paid the sum of Rs. 1,200.00 the Tribunal was of the opinion (a) that the evidence showed that Maria was not possessed of sufficient means to pay the aforesaid sum, (b) that the evidence disclosed that Ratnamma sold her furniture in order to realize money to pay the advocate, but inasmuch the purchaser of the furniture, was not precise as to when the furniture was sold, the tribunal opined that from the circumstances a presumption arose that the amount of Rs. 1,200.00 might have been paid by Ratnamma. Having come to these conclusions on the questions of engagement of the respondent and the payment of the fees, the tribunal thought that under the circumstances of the case the advocate should have informed Ratnamma before applying for succession certificate on behalf of Maria and as be had failed to do so, it could not be said that there was any misconduct proved on the part of the advocate. It, therefore, recommended that a warning be administered to the respondent so that he may desist from appearing for the opposite side in such cases in future.