An advocate's actions must be assessed in light of legal provisions and previous judgments to determine professional misconduct.

Leach, C.J.

1. The respondent is an advocate of this Court. Seven charges of professional misconduct have been framed against him. They have been investigated by the District Judge of Tinnevelly, who has held that five of them, have not been substantiated but that two of them have been proved. The report of the District Judge now comes up for consideration by this Court. We agree with the District Judge that the five charges which he has decided in favour of the respondent have not been proved, but we disagree with him with his findings on the other two charges. On these charges we consider that the respondent is also entitled to a decision in his favour.

2. The petition on which these proceedings were instituted was filed by Thayumanasundarathammal, the widow of one Sankara Gomathi Chettiar, a merchant of Tuticorin. Sankara Gomathi Chettiar died on 28th July 1927 when his wife was 23 years of age. By her he had three children, the eldest of whom was a boy named Muthiah. Sankara Gomathi Chettiar left certain properties, but according to the report he was, at the time of his death, in embarrassed circumstances. At all material time the respondent practised at Tuticorin and between the month of July 1929 and the month of January 1932 he appeared in suits on behalf of the minor. Muthiahs maternal grandfather, Kashinatha, appears to have instructed the respondent in matters which affected the minor. The first charge is to the effect that while acting for the minor in two cases which are specified and representing him "generally" the respondent accepted a vakalat from one Joseph Fernando of Tuticorin to appear in proceedings to enforce the payment of a decree which had been obtained against the minor as representing his fathers estate. It is perfectly clear that the respondent did not hold a general retainer on behalf of the minor, but had merely been engaged in certain cases. In each case he was given a separate vakalat. There was nothing to prevent him appearing on behalf of Joseph Fernando against the minor and this District Judge has recognised. It may here be mentioned that included in the first charge is an additional charge of having misappropriated the sum of Rs. 2-8-0. There is no question of misappropriation here and it is very regrettable that this additional charge was framed.

3. The second charge is that in October 1929 the respondent received three sums aggregating Rs. 600 from one Karuthiah A. Fernando for payment to the minor, and that the respondent "dishonestly or negligently" paid the money to Kashinatha, the maternal grandfather who had no authority to receive payment on behalf of the minor. The money was paid over to Kashinatha in order that he might take it to his daughter who was living in seclusion. His daughter, as the mother of the minor, was his lawful guardian. The District Judge has held that the respondent was not dishonest or negligent in doing this, and we agree with him. The money was eventually paid over to Muthukumaraswami Pillai, the brother of the respondent, to whom Karuthiah was indebted. The evidence shows that the payment over to Muthukumaraswami Pillai, was made with the consent of the minors mother.

4. The third charge is divided into three parts. Charge 3 (a) is to the effect that the respondent in obtaining a consent decree in a suit in which the minor was concerned made a false statement and concealed a material fact from the Court. The suit was Section C. No. 129 of 1930 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin. It was filed on behalf of the minor to recover from the firm of Aspinwall & Co. Rs. 750 alleged to be due for fibresupplied to them by the minors father. The defence was that there had in fact been an overpayment to the extent of Rs. 95-15-0 in respect of the fibre delivered to the defendants. Sankara Gomathi Chettiar had dealt with Aspinwall & Co., for many years and they did not wish to have litigation with his son. They were willing to pay the plaintiff the sum