SUBBA PILLAI Vs. RAMASAMY AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two items allowed by the Lower Appellate Court in favour of the respondent to which objections were taken by the appellant's Pleader are (i) an item of Rs. 94-1-0 being the share of Govinda Pillai, the appellant's deceased brother, in the sum drawn (by the respondent) from the court in S.C.S. No. 1938 of 1895 and (ii) an item of Rs. 200 being the amount of a promissory note made by Govinda Pillai in favour of the respondent.

(2.) As regards the first item, the respondent's plea was that he appropriated the amount towards the fees due to him in O.S. No. 14 of 1895--a suit for partition against the present appellant which abated on the death of Govinda Pillai, the plaintiff therein--and that he was also authorized by Govinda Pillai to do so. The lower appellate Court refers to this question of authorization as the 3 question for decision in the appeal before it and records (on it) a finding in the affirmative--in favor of the present respondents. There is evidence in the case in support of this alleged authority and we accept the finding of the Subordinate Judge on this point. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider whether even in the absence of such authority, the respondent would be entitled, as found by the Subordinate Judge, to appropriate this item which was drawn in S.C.S. No. 1938 of 1895, for fees due to him (by Govinda Pillai) not in that suit but in another suit, namely, O.S. No. 14 of 1895.

(3.) As regards the second item, if the amount of the promissory note were in reality, a sum advanced by way of loan to Govinda Pillai, the respondent's remedy would be only on the promissory note and he would have no lien under Section 217 of the Indian Contract Act, on any sums received by him (from courts) on behalf of Govinda Pillai, his client and the promissory note would not be invalid under Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners Act. But reading the promissory note (Exhibit I, dated the 11 November 1896) along with the letter (Exhibit II, dated the 7 October 1896) of Govinda Pillai, to the respondent, it is clear that the amount of the promissory note was not an amount advanced by way of loan, but an amount which, at the request of his client, the respondent disbursed for outfees in the suit in which he was retained as vakil. In this view, the questions arising for decision are whether the promissory note is invalid under Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners Act and whether the respondent is entitled, under Secs.217 and 218 of the Indian Contract Act, to a lien in respect of the amount and can deduct the same out of the sum received by him (from court) on account of his client--it being conceded that the respondent's claim if any, on the promissory note, whether by suit or by set off, was barred at the date of the suit.