THANGAMMAL AYIYAR Vs. KRISHNAN (MINOR)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the petitioner. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a suit instituted by the 1 plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 500 as vakil's fees due to him in respect of his appearance as pleader on behalf of the defendant's deceased husband, the Zamindar of Nagaram, in Summary Suit No. 559 of 1923 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukotta. The 1 plaintiff died subsequent to the filing of the suit and his undivided sons were added as his legal representatives, plaintiffs 2 and 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the 1 plaintiff, the deceased vakil Appasami Aiyar, appeared in the above suit for 28 hearings and the late Zamindar of Nagaram agreed to pay him at a certain rate per diem, and that, even if the Court thinks that the agreement is not valid, the sum claimed should be paid on the basis of quantum meruit. The defendant pleaded that the contract set up by the plaintiffs is not true or valid, and that, even if the 1 plaintiff is entitled to any remuneration, the sum claimed was excessive. The two main issues in the case were: (1) whether there was a specific contract as alleged in the plaint, and (2) whether the plaintiffs can claim compensation on the principle of quantum meruit. On these issues the learned Subordinate Judge found in favour of the plaintiffs and gave them a decree for a sum of Rs. 390 according to the rate mentioned in the agreement.

(2.) In this Civil Revision Petition the only point urged before us is that, having regard to Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners Act, the agreement entered into between the petitioner's husband and the 1 plaintiff is not valid and binding and therefore the 1 plaintiff is not entitled to recover any sum as remuneration for his services. This argument is admittedly opposed to the decision in Subba Pillai V/s. Ramasami Aiyar (1903) I.L.R. 27 M. 512 : 14 M.L.J. 274, which will be referred to presently. As the learned Chief Justice before whom the case came up for disposal doubted the correctness of that decision he has referred it to a Bench with the following note: This case must be referred to a Bench. Sitting as a single Judge here I have no power to refuse to follow Subba Pillai V/s. Ramasami Aiyar (1903) I.L.R. 27 M. 512: 14 M.L.J. 274, although I take the liberty of saying that I think that it amounts to an absolute departure from the plain words of the section of the Statute. But that must be said, if it is to be said with effect, by a Bench and not by a single Judge.

(3.) Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners Act is in these terms: No agreement entered into by any pleader with any person retaining or employing him, respecting the amount and manner of payment for the whole or any part of any past or future services, fees, charges or disbursements, in respect of business done or to be done by such pleader shall be valid, unless it is made in writing signed by such person, and is, within fifteen days from the day on which it is executed, filed in the District Court or in some Court in which some portion of the business in respect of which it has been executed has been or is to be done.