Judgment

D. A. DESAI, J. :- The appellant was ill-advised in filing this appeal because the more the learned counsel appearing for the appellant dived deep into a veritable dustbin of facts, the further hearing caused deep anguish more on account of the realisation as to how occasionally, and we am happy to record very occasionally, a member of the noble profession sinks to the lowest and to vindicate his actions tries to clutch at the highest.

2. One M. Ram Mohan Rao. who was described as a senior of appellant M. Veerabhadra Rao has been a practising advocate at Hyderabad. Appellant M. Veerabhadra Rao was enrolled as an advocate in the year 1961 as stated in his evidence. He joined the chamber of his senior and at the relevant time he was working in the chamber of his senior. Shri M. Ram Mohan Rao was a tenant of the premises bearing Municipal No, 3242 situated at Rashtrapathi Road, (Kingsway), Secunderabad of which respondent Tek Chand son of Lala Moti Ram was the owner. It is alleged that the respondent, his wife Mohini and son Subhash Chandra sold and conveyed the house in question by a deed of conveyance in favour of Premlata wife of Sohan Lal Saloot and daughter of Hastimal Jain for a consideration of Rs. 65,000/-. As the sale was for a consideration of more than 50,000/- the vendor was required to produce an Income-tax Clearance Certificate as required by S. 230 of the Income-tax Act, 1962 before the sale deed could be registered. It may he mentioned that sometime before the alleged transaction of sale, a suit was filed by respondent Tek Chand against Shri M. Ram Mohan Rao, the tenant for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent etc. This suit had ended in a decree and at the relevant time, an appeal preferred by Shri M. Ram Mohan Rao was pending. To resume the narrative Tek Chand had already obtained the necessary Income-tax clearance certificate on July 5, 1972. When the sale deed was presented for registration, the Registrar of Conveyances asked for the Income-tax clearance certificate and respondent Tek Chand said that on payment of the full consideration, the same will be produced. From thereon the distressing events leading to the present appeal started.

3. Respondent Tek Chand filed a complaint No. 14 of 1974 under S. 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 before the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh alleging that one Mr. M. Ram Mohan Rao, advocate was a tenant of a house situated at Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad of which he was the owner. This house was agreed to be sold for Rs. 65,000/- to Premlata daughter of Shri Hastimal Jain and Rs. 10,000/- was paid as earnest money. The sale deed was to be completed within a period of three months on the vendee paying the balance of consideration of Rs. 55,000/-. The vendee did not pay the amount and the respondent alleged that he had cancelled the agreement for sale. It was further alleged that as the consideration for sale was exceeding Rs. 50,000/-, the sale deed cannot be registered unless an Income-tax clearance certificate is produced, but as the balance of consideration was not paid. agreement to sell the house was cancelled. However as the vendee Premlata wanted to grab the house without paying the balance of consideration, in order to get the sale deed registered, it was decided to get the Income-tax clearance certificate and with this end in view an application purporting to be in the name of the respondent with his signature forged thereon bearing the date October 31, 1972 and with an incorrect address was prepared. As an affidavit is necessary in support of the application, the same was prepared on a stamp paper of Rs. 2/- with the signature of respondent Tek Chand forged thereon. This affidavit was attested by the appellant as he is an advocate authorised to attest affidavits. On the strength of the forged documents, an Income-tax clearance certificate was obtained in the name of the respondent and the sale deed was got registered. It was alleged that the