MAHABOOB SIR FRAJVANTU SREE RAJAH PARTHASARADHI APPA ROW SAVAYI ASWA ROW BAHADUR ZAMINDAR GARU Vs. TURLAPATI SUBBA ROW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in this case employed one Sobhanadri, lather of the defendants, as his vakil in revenue suits, and he has now brought the present suit after Sobhanadri's death against defendants as legal representatives for an account of their father's agency. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that Sobhanadri acted as plaintiff's agent in each of the suits in which he appeared as vakil and has held that the plaintiff's claim is barred except in respect of suits the proceedings in which terminated less than three years before the suit.

(2.) The first point taken in appeal is that the Subordinate Judge is wrong in treating Sobhanadri's agency as being an agency in respect of each of the suits, and it is argued that he was a general agent for the plaintiff in respect of all revenue litigation. The order appointing him is Exhibit B (2) under which he was appointed by the plaintiff to conduct revenue suits in the District Munsif's Courts and before revenue officers, but this document does not in itself constitute Sobhanadri as agent, for Sobhanadri could not appear as such agent without a vakalat in each suit. It was an appointment as standing vakil, and until a vakalat was given to the vakil there was no agency distinctly constituted. There was no contract which bound him to appear in each and every suit, nor was there any contract binding the plaintiff to appoint him in every suit, and it is in evidence that the plaintiff employed several other vakils for similar litigation. There can, therefore, be no question of general agency, but the agency was merely in respect of each individual suit. In this connection I may refer to Saffoon Waldon Second Benefit Building Society V/s. Raynir (1880) 14 Ch D 406., where it was sought to treat a solicitor who was appointed for trustees as agent of those trustees in receiving a notice and I would quote a passage at page 415, " As Lord Justice James said, there is no such thing as a standing relation of a solicitor to a man. A solicitor does not stand in a permanent relation to his client as a chaplain does to a nobleman or body having a chaplain. A man is a solicitor for another only when that other has occasion to employ him as such. That employment may be either to conduct a suit or to advise him about some matter in which legal advice is required; but there is no such general relationship as that of solicitor and client of a standing and permanent character upon all occasions and for all purposes." These remarks are in my opinion strictly applicable to the present case if we merely substitute the word " pleader" for "solicitor." The Subordinate Judge was therefore right in rejecting the plea that the agency was one and indivisible.

(3.) The next question relates to the period of limitation and it is argued that the plaintiff having come into Court within three years of the death of defendants father his suit is within time as regards all the agencies. Reliance is placed on several cases in the Allahabad and Calcutta Courts, Kali Krishna Pal Chowdhry v. Srimali Jagattara (1868) 2 Beng LR 139, Bindraban Behari V/s. Jamuna Kunwar (1902) ILR 25 A 55 and Rao Girraj Singh V/s. Rani Raghubir Kunwar (1909) ILR 31 A 429. In the first of these cases the agent died before his agency terminated and it was held that as against his legal representatives the article of limitation applicable was 120, but the question is not discussed in any detail. In Bindraban Behari V/s. Jamuna Kunwar (1902) ILR 25 A 55. the plaintiff sued to recover a definite sum of money which was in his agent's hands and which he said passed to his legal representatives, the defendants in the suit. Here also it was held that Art. 120 was applicable. A similar case is the one reported in Gurudas Pyne v. Ram Narain Sahu (1884) ILR 10 C 860 (PC). and these two cases were followed in Rao Girraj Singh V/s. Rani Raghubir Kunwar (1909) ILR 31 A 429.. It will be seen that in none of these cases was there really a suit for an account, but they were suits to recover certain moneys in the agent's hands for which that agent was liable to account. It is true that the Courts seem to hold that the cause of action against the agent is a distinct cause of action from that against his legal representatives. This may possibly be based on the idea that the sons under Hindu Law are only liable for their father's debts after the lather's death, but it is now well-settled law that a son's liability to pay his father's debts arises even before the death of the father and consequently their estate would be liable equally with their father's estate.