G NARAYANASWAMI NAIDU GARU, RECEIVER Vs. CHEILAPALLI HANUMANNAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the face of the specific instructions contained in Exhibits E and E the defendant had no business to appropriate the amounts realized in execution of the Small Cause decree towards his dues in other cases conducted by him, even if we are to assume a previous course of practice according to which it was usual to make such appropriations. It is not suggested that these instructions were subsequently cancelled or varied. The cases cited by Mr. Tiruvengatachariar are good authority for the position that a solicitor has no right of retainer in moneys realized by him in one cause for his dues in other causes conducted by him. See Bozen V/s. Bolland (1839) 18 R.R. 121 Hall V/s. Laver (1842) 66 E.R. 1158 : 1 Hare 571 Mackenzie V/s. Mackintosh (1891) 64 I.T. (N.S.) 706. A pleader in INdia has no higher rights. Section 217 of the Contract Act does not help the defendant. We must, therefore, reverse the decrees of the Courts below. The plaintiff will have a decree for Rs. 556-14-4 with interest at 6 per cent from the 1 June 1903 to this date with further interest at 6 per cent. on the whole sum until realization not exceeding 6 months from this date. The plaintiff is entitled to his costs throughout.