JUDGMENT - 1. The relevant facts out of which this civil revision application and the civil application arise are briefly as follows. The applicant and opponent No. 1 are brothers. Opponents Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of opponent No. 1. There were certain disputes between the applicant on the one hand and the opponents on the other with regard to joint family properties, which were referred to arbitration. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, the applicant made an application for grant of a succession certificate in order to enable him to withdraw a sum of Rs. 31,000 which was lying with some banks in Ahmednagar to the credit of the father of the applicant and opponent No. 1 who died on 24-5-1954.

That application was granted and the succession certificate was issued in favour of the applicant. After obtaining the aforesaid succession certificate, the applicant withdrew the aforesaid amount of Rs. 31,000 from the banks after furnishing security as ordered by the Court which granted the succession certificate to him.

(2) The arbibritration proceedings have apparently not yet terminated. The opponents have instituted a special civil suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division. Ahmednagar, claiming Rs. 25,992 from the applicant in respect of opponent No. 1s half share in the amounts lying with the banks and in respect of opponent No. 1s half share in the immoveable property. In that suit he also made an application for the issue of an injuction restraining the applicant from withdrawing the money lying with the banks. That application was rejected. Against the order rejecting the application, the opponents preferred Appeal from Order No. 234 of 1957 before this Court. It went up for hearing before Tendolkar J. on 16-12-1957. It would appear that the dispute between the parties was settled before him. In the course of his order concerning this settlement Tendolkar J. observed as follows:

".................Undoubtedly, when the Court granted the succession certificate, it enable the respondent to withdraw the amount, and since it was making an order enabling him to withdraw the amount, it required him to give security for the one-half share of the first appellant in the said amount; but the order that the appellants had asked for before learned Civil Judge did not in any manner affect the provisions of the order for a succession certificate. Mr. Kotwal appearing for the respondent quite fairly agrees that after withdrawing the said amount his client will deduct therefrom the costs of obtaining the successions certificate and will deposit in Court one-half share of the balance within a month after withdrawing the amount. Having regard to this offer of the respondent made by Mr. Kotwal, it is not necessary either to disturb the order of the Civil Judge or to make any substantive order in the appeal".

The applicant has now come up to this Court for setting aside the order of Tendolkar J., alleging that Mr. Kotwal had no authority to settle the matter in the way he has done.

(3) Before dealing with the aforesaid contention, it would be convenient to mention that after the order of Tendolkar J. was passed the opponents made an application to the Court of the Civil Judge for the issue of a direction to the applicant requiring him to deposit opponent No. 1s half share in the amount withdrawn by him from the banks. This application was opposed by the applicant, but was allowed by the learned Judge. Against the order of the learned Judge allowing the application the applicant has come up inrevision and that is Civil Revision Application No. 1378 of 1958.

(4) It was vehemently argued by Mr. Pendse on behalf of the applicant that Advocates who have diled vakalatnamas on behalf of their clients have no power to enter into a compromise on behalf of their clients unless the vakalatnama specifically empowered them to enter into a compromise. In support of his contention be relied upon the decisions in Saratkumari v. Amulyadhan,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document