JUDGMENT :- These are connected appeals directed against the decrees and judgments of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli in O. S. Nos. 113 of 1950 and 25 of 1951.

2. The facts are : The first defendant in both these suits S.T. Sahib is a substantial landlord of Vadakarai village who was formerly trading in Ceylon and apparently after making his fortune there has come and settled in Tirunelveli District. He had taken on lease Mekkari, Pathavtdtkarai thurai Mutt and Kumarar Kovil lands. This S.T. Sahib was employing as his agent Muhammad Hussain Rowther for collecting the rents, sub-leasing etc., in respect of these lands. The Mekkarai lands are found to have been taken on lease by this Hussain Rowther under an authorization letter from S.T. Sahib at Tiruvaduthurai at the rate of Rs. 14,500/- per year and a preliminary agreement has been entered into on S.T. Sahibs behalf by this Hussain Rowther. The lease deed relating to the transaction came into effect from 1-7-1947.

3. I shall now briefly describe the plaintiff in O. S. No. 113 of 1950, N. Hasan Ghani Sahib. This Hasan Ghani Sahib is a vakil of 26 years standing residing at Tenkasi. He pays a Beriz of Rs. 325. His practice seems to be purely on the criminal side. He is said to be a close associate of another person who has been constantly figuring in our Courts in sensational litigations viz., M.D.T. Kumaraswami Mudaliar examined as P. W. 2 in O. S. 113 of 1950, and which association shows according to the appellant that birds of the same feather flock together. It is in evidence that this vakil was also personally involved in several criminal proceedings which may now be briefly narrated.

In C. C. No. 1305 of 1940 he was charge-sheeted along with two others under S. 430, I. P. C. and on 15-11-1941 under Ex. A-5 this case seems to have been compounded with the permission of the Court. In 1944 one Masoodu Rowthar complained against him for mischief in C. C. No. 8 of 1944. In that case this vakil was a co-accused along with this S.T. Sahib. In 1948 he has figured as an accused in another criminal case along with two others. This is all admitted by this Ghani Sahib.

He was also the vakil for S.T. Sahib to whom he is also related by reason of a marriage alliance. But subsequently ill-feelings seem to have arisen between them by reason of this S.T. Sahib purchasing a share in immovable properties from the brother-in-law of this Ghani Sahib and in which the latter seems to have been interested. Then this S.T. Sahib has given his legal work to a Nadar advocate. It may be taken therefore as established that by the first part of 1948 feelings between this S.T. Sahib and the vakil Ghani Sahib were not good.

3a. The relationship between S.T. Sahib and his agent seemed to have been outwardly friendly and correct, though this agent has been harbouring apparently ill-feelings against his master. In fact this agent has through this very Ghani Sahib given a lawyers notice to this S.T. Sahib on 24-5-1948 claiming that himself and S.T. Sahib were partners in four joint leases from 1942 to 1952 and that from which profits have been made, that this S.T. Sahib was not showing him accounts and attempting to defraud him and that therefore accounts should be rendered by S.T. Sahib and moneys given to this agent.

On the foot of this notice a suit O. S. 222 of 1952 has been filed in the District Munsifs Court, Tenkasi. I may complete this information by pointing out that S.T. Sahib contested this claim as wholly false and inspired. This suit was dismissed after an elaborate enquiry by the learned District Munsif, Tenkasi on 30-8-1954. There was an appeal in A. S. No. 57 of 1955, sub-court, Tirunelveli (originally A. S. No. 248 of 1954, District Court, Tirunelveli) and it was dismissed on 18-4-1955 with costs.

4. On 2-4-1948 at about 9 a.m. S.T. Sahib at his house at Vadakarai entrusted this Hussain Rowther with Rs. 6000 with directions to give the amount to the Rayasam of the Tiruvaduthur