RAMAPPAYYA Vs. SUBBAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this civil miscellaneous appeal the sole point for decision (whether an advocate-or a pleader to whom a vakalatnama is given, has power in the absence of express authorisation to compromise the suit on behalf of the party for whom he appears.

(2.) The appeal came before Yahya Ali, J. who directed it to be placed before the Chief Justice for orders, in light of the conflict in the decided authorities. Hence it comes before this Bench for disposal.

(3.) In the Court of the District Munsiff of Karkal the plaintiffs claimed possession of some immoveable property as the reversioners of one Keshava Bhatta deceased, the last male holder. During her life-time, his widow purported to settle the property upon one Puttappayya who, having died, was survived by the five defendants, some of whom claimed the property and were in possession of it. The suit was laid against all survivors. The third and fifth defendants remained ex parte; the first, second and fourth defendants contested the suit on the ground that the property was demised by Keshava Bhatta by will to his widow who consequently had full disposing power over it. The first defendant asserted no interest, alleging that the property had been allocated to the second defendant in a partition. The second and fourth defendants further alleged that moneys had been spent by way of repairs and improvements and, in any event, the expenditure should be reimbursed. The first defendant appeared by a pleader and the second and fourth defendants were represented by an advocate to whom respectively they gave vakalatnamas signed by each of them. The suit was compromised and a decree was passed upon the terms endorsed upon the plaint, including that the three contesting defendants agreed there should be a decree for possession. The endorsement was signed by the first and second defendants, by the pleader for the former and by the advocate for the second and fourth defendants ; the fourth defendant was not in Court and did not sign the terms. She. disputes the validity of the com promise, so far as she is concerned, alleging she did not agree to it and the advocate had no authority to effect it on her behalf. No point arises by reason of the second and fourth defendants being represented by the same advocate and the appeal has been treated and argued as if she had given a separate vakalatnama to the advocate and he had appeared for her alone