The Chief Justice.-

In this civil miscellaneous appeal the sole point for decision whether an advocate-or a pleader-to whom a vakalatnama is given, has power in the absence of express authorisation to compromise the suit on behalf of the party for whom he appears.

The appeal came before Yahya Ali, J. who directed it to be placed before the Chief Justice for orders, in light of the conflict in the decided authorities Hence it comes before this Bench for disposal.

In the Court of the District Munsiff of Karkal the plaintiffs claimed possession of some immoveable property as the reversioners, of one Keshava Bhatta deceased the last male holder. During her life-time, his widow purported to settle the pro-‘perty upon one Puttappayya who, having died, was survived by the five defendants some of whom claimed the property and were in possession of it The suit was laid against all survivors. The third and fifth defendants remained ex parte; the first, second and fourth defendants contested the suit on the ground that the property was demised by Keshava Bhatta by will to his widow who consequently had full disposing power over it. The first defendant asserted no interest alleging that the prope

Click Here to Read the rest of this document