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 property had been allocated to the second defendant in a partition The second and fourth defendants further alleged that moneys had been spent by way of repairs and improvements and, in any event, the expenditure should be reimbursed. The first defendant appeared by a pleader and the second and fourth defendants were represented by an advocate to whom respectively they gave vakalatnamas signed by each of them. The suit was compromised and a decree was passed upon the terms endorsed upon the plaint, including that the three con testing defendants agreed there should be a decree for possession The endorse ment was signed by the first and second defendants, by the pleader for the former and by the advocate for the second and fourth defendants; the fourth defendant was not in Court and did not sign the terms. She disputes the validity of the com promise, so far as she is concerned, alleging she did not agree to it and the advocate had no authority to effect it on her behalf. No point arises by reason of the second and fourth defendants being represented by the same advocate and the appeal has been treated and argued as if she had given a separate vakalatnama to the advocate and he had appeared for her alone.

An appeal by the fourth defendant to the learned Subordinate Judge of South Kanara challenging the validity of the settlement, so far as she is concerned was allowed; the decree passed against her was set aside and the trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial of the suit with reference to that defendant’s defence and decide the matter on the merits. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge.

The vakalatnama provides that,

“I (fourth defendant) do hereby appoint and retain (the advocate) to appear for me in the above suit and to conduct and defend the same.”

Then follows, with regard to the suit, express directions for the advocate to conduct and defend proceedings in any application for execution, appear in all miscellaneous proceedings in the suit until all decrees or orders are satisfied or adjusted obtain the return of all documents; draw any moneys payable to the client; accept service of notice of all appeals or petitions filed in any Court of Appeal, reference or revision. In all there are six express directions, powers or authorities given in the vakalatnama. There is no reference made to compromise of the suit but on the contrary, the advocate is expressly directed to conduct and to defend it; the other powers or directions are to do the several things, therein mentioned, after a decree had been passed.

Before referring to the decided cases I desire to make two observations It is difficult to see how an express and explicit direction or power to conduct and defend a suit, which must mean to con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document