The central legal point established in the judgment is that a recognized agent with a power of attorney does not have the same rights and privileges as members of the legal profession, and is subject to limitations in conducting judicial proceedings in Court.

Beasley, C.J.

1. This matter has been referred to us by Gentle, J. The following questions have been raised, viz. (1) Whether an agent with a power of attorney to appear and conduct judicial proceedings has the right of audience in Court; (2) whether the agent is entitled to notice if his principal wants to appear and conduct the proceedings himself in person or appoints an advocate to appear for him; and (3) whether the power of attorney agent can carry on business as a solicitor or attorney, drafting, engrossing and filing plaint, Judges summons, affidavits and generally issuing legal process and Charge fees to the principal.

2. That all three questions stand to be answered in the negative seems to us to be clear; but as the respondent has definitely asserted a right to the notice specified in question 2, and certainly by strong implication if not by his conduct to the right of audience stated in question 1 and the matters in question 3 also arise both out of his conduct and claim, we consider that this matter which is of course of extreme importance to the legal profession should be fully discussed by us. The matter arises in the following way: The respondent; is the holder of a power of attorney given to him by one Krishnammal, a widow. Krishnammal had filed a suit in the Madras City Civil Court against her sister Thayarammal to get her half share in the assets of one Palla Kuppammal, deceased, and it was necessary to apply for a search and get copies of the records in O.P. No. 58 of 1935 (T.O. 8. No. 7 of 1935) on the file of the High Court and to take further proceedings therein. Being unable to stay in Madras she appointed the respondent as agent to search the records and apply for copies thereof in the above matter, to file into and receive from Court all papers relating thereto, to swear affidavits, to file necessary petitions and to verify and sign the same, to appear and plead in Court in parson on my behalf, to engage advocates If necessary and to sign in their vakalats, to do all acts necessary in the conduct of the above proceedings and in furtherance thereof.

3. In the before-mentioned litigation (T.O.S. No 7 of 1935) a petition was posted on 16th November 1936 before the Master, and on that date, when the petition was called on, Mr. T.R. Srinivasa Iyengar appeared on behalf of Krishnammal having been given a vakalat by her. The petition was adjourned and the respondent filed an affidavit on 26th November 1936, stating that Krishnammal had neither orally nor in writing intimated to him that she did not wish him to appear in the litigation and without revoking his power of attorney (which be marked as an exhibit) had engaged Mr. T. R Srinivasa Iyengar, and he further stated that Krishnammal did this in order to deprive him of the remuneration due to him payable by her; and he claimed that the power of attorney was of the same force and validity as that of a vakalat and that, unless it was revoked by formal proceedings through Court, no orders could be passed on the petition. Therefore, by reason of the authority given to him in the power of attorney, he claimed the same right as a legal practitioner who has been given a vakalat; and since the power of attorney authorizes him to plead in Court, it follows that he claims that right; and indeed we are informed that either in these proceedings or in some other, Lakshmana Rao, J. allowed him to address the Court. In view of the claim put forward by the respondent in the affidavit referred to, the Master posted the matter before Gentle, J. for orders and he has referred the matter to us and it has been fully argued here by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Krishnammal, the Bar Council, the Advocates Association and the Attorneys Association; and we have also heard the respondent in person.

4. We may say at once that there is an unreported Bench decision of this High Court directly in point on the first question in C.M.P. No. 498 of 1911, where it was held by