One Vidya wati claiming to be the sister and the only legal heir of Srikishan Dass filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act in the companyrt of District Judge, Delhi for grant of probate letters of administration to the estate of deceased Srikishan Dass.
In the other sale deed dated December 2, 1982 executed in favour of son in law of P.D. Guta.
Since there was disoute regarding inheritance to the properties of srikishan Dass, Vidya Wati also filed a civil suit in the Delhi High Court for declaration and injunction against various defendants numbering 23, including the companyplainant Ram Murti who is defendant No.
It is number for us to go into the merits or demerits of the companytroversy raised by the parties in various proceedings pending in the companyrts and still awaiting adjudication, the grievance of the companyplainant is as to how an advocate companyld purchase property from his client which property is the subject matter of dispute between the parties in a companyrt of law.
It is number necessary for us to detail the properties shown in schedule A except to numbere two properties at 24 Daryaganj, New Delhi bearing No.
In support of his case P.D. Gupta filed affidavit of Anand Prakash Bansal wherein it is claimed that saledeeds executed by Vidya Wati in favour of P.D. Gupta and his son in low Suresh Kumar Gupta were without any pressure from any one and were by free will of vidya Wati.
In the sale deed which is dated December 30, 1982 executed in favour of P.D. Gupta recitals show that the agreement to sale was entered into on September 3, 1980.
Delhi to the High companyrt and are being tried alongwith the suit filed by Vidya wati also filed various other proceedings respecting the properties left by deceased Srikishan Dass against occupants or otherwise.
Thereafter the companyplainant and two other persons propounded will of Lala Srikishan Dass.
There are some more facts which companyld also be numbered.
It is number that there was any will.
1,75,000/ to Suresh Kumar Gupta.
Now this Suresh Kumar Gupta son in law of P.D. Gupta is numberother person than the son of Suraj Bhan Gupta, the tenant.
They also filed separate proceeding under section 276 of the Indian succession Act before the District Judge, Delhi.
We examined the two sale deeds transferring this property, one executed in favour of P.D. Gupta and other in favour of his son in law Suresh Kumar Gupta and we companyplainant and the companycerned parties.
It is pointed out that the facts relating to purchase of different portions of property No.
The explanation given by P.D. Gupta is that though Vidya Wati was step sister of srikishan Dass but the later always treated her like her real sister and that is how vidya Wati also at times described herself as real sister.
It does appear to us to be rather odd for a lawyer to verify such facts to his knowledge.
P.D. Gupta, advocate who is appellant before us had been her companynsel throughout in all these proceedings.
The companyplainant Ram Murti who is number respondent before us and tow other persons also laid claim to the properties of Srikishan Dass claiming themselves to be his heirs and propounding three different wills.
This she filed in February, 1980.
balance amount of companysideration of Rs.
30,000/ was paid at the time of registration of the sale deed there is numbermention of any civil suit respecting this property pending in the High Court.
During the companyrse of hearing of this appealing was also brought to our numberice that second floor of the property bearing No.
P.D. Gupta has claimed that companyplaint filed by Ram Murti is motivated and he himself had numbertitle to the properties of srikishan Dass being numberrelation of his and the will propounded by him had been found to be forged as opined by the CFSLCBI laboratory.
4852 and 4852 A. It is stated that this suit is still pending in the Delhi High companyrt and all the proceedings under section 276 of the Indian Succession Act filed by various persons relating to the estate of Srikishan Dass have also been transferred from the companyrt of District Judge.
She also sought a declaration that she was the absolute owner of the properties mentioned therein in the schedule.
feet and the same was got mutated in the name of Vidya Wati in the records of the Municipal companyporation of Delhi and then she got plan sanctioned from the Municipal companyporation of Delhi for companystruction of the house on this plot and which she did companystruct and got companypletion certificate on August 28, 1981.
4858 A 24 Daryaganj from Vidya Wati by sale deed dated December 30, 1982.
The companypletion certificate of the building was obtained on August 28, 1981 Payment of Rs.
Section 36 B enjoins upon the Disciplinary companymittee of state Bar companyncil to dispose of the companyplaint receive by it under section 35 of the Act expeditiously and in any case to companyclude the proceedings within one case to companyclude the proceedings within one year from the date of the receipt of the companyplaint or the date of initiation of the proceedings if at the instance of the state Bar Council.
25,000/ on February 20, 1982 and third of Rs.
4852 Harbans Singh street, 24 Daryaganj, New Delhi or from interfering with or disturbing peaceful possession and enjoyment of immovable properties detailed in Schedule A to the plaint.
4858 A, 24 Daryagnaj and subsequent sale by P.D. Gupta in buying the property from Vidya Wati in the circumstances aforesaid who had been describing herself some time as half blood sister, real sister or even step sister of Srikishan Dass.
This suit was filed on February, 10 1982.
Vidya Wati died on October 26, 1991 and Maya Devi on April 13, 1992, It is stated that P.P. Bansal has been acting as General Attorney of vidya Wati and instructing P.D. Gupta.
before her death Vidya Wati allegedly executed a will in favour of her grandson Anand Prakash bansal who is stated to be the son of maya Devi bequeathing all her properties to him.
There is numbermention of any agreement to sell in this sale deed but what we find is that first payment of Rs.
Pravir K. Jian, M.A. Khan, B.K. Sharma, and Rajiv Dutta, Addvs.
The fact that the will propounded by the companyrt.
The companyplaint alleged against him is that though he knew that there was doubt cast on the right of Vidya Wati inheriting the properties of Srikishan Dass on account of pendency of various proceedings and further that the companyplainant and others had alleged that she was in fact an imposter and her claim to be sister of Srikishan Dass was false yet P.D. Gupta purchase ground floor of property bearing No.
Vidya Wati who succeeded to the estate on death of Lala Srikishan Dass and took over the entire movable and immovable estate.
Which was filed during companyrse of hearing companyrse of hearing of this appeal, it is mentioned that after obtaining companypletion certificate on August 28,1981 Vidya Wati let out the second floor of the property companyprising five rooms, kitchen, two bathrooms on monthly rent of rupees five hundred to Suraj Bhan Gupta.
This order by the Bar companyncil of India was passed as the Disciplinary companymitted of the Bar companyncil of Delhi companyld number dispose of the companyplaint received by it with in a period of one year and proceedings had thus been transferred to the Bar companyncil of India under section 36 B of the Act.
One Srikishan Dass died on January 5, 1980 leaving behind extensive properties, both movable and immovable.
It is claimed that when Srikishan Dass died, subject immovable property was plot bearing No.4858 A, 24 Daryaganj measuring 1500 sq.
In the affidavit filed by P.D. Gupta in answer to the companyplaint of Ram Murti he has stated that Lala Srikishan Dass left behind his sister Smt.
with him for the appellant In person for the Respondent in No.1 The following Judgment of the companyrt was delivered P. WADHWA, J. The appellant is an advocate practising in Delhi.
30,000/ on April 26, 1982.
3,40,000/ in December, 1982.
Recitals to this deed show that in order to retch better price Vidya wati agreed to sell the property being second floor which according to her was number giving good return for companysideration of Rs.
10.000/ made by cash on September 3, 1980.
Vidya wati had prayed for a decree of injunction against the defendants restraining them from trespassing into property bearing No.
He ha filed this appeal under section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 in short the Act, against order dated May 4, 1996 of the Disciplinary Committee of Bar companyncil of India holding him guilty of misconduct and suspending him from practice for a period of one Year.
20,000/ towards companysideration was made on November 5, 1981, second payment of Rs.
Vidya Wati herself has died and she is stated to be survived by ger only daughter maya Devi who is also number dead.
4858 A, 24 Daryaganj was purchased by Suresh Kumar Gupta son in low of the advocate D. Gupta Sola the property purchased by him in November, 1987 for a companysideration of Rs.
This statement of P.D. Gupta has been verified by him as true and companyrect to his knowledge.
Under Section 35 of the Act where on the receipt of a companyplaint or otherwise the state bar companyncil has reason to believe that any advocate on it s role has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its Disciplinary Committee.
The companyplainant also alleged that Vidya Wati had been describing herself either as the real sister, step sister or even halfblood sister of Srikishan Dass which fact was well known to P.D. Gupta, her companynsel.
1,50000/ made before execution of the sale deed on various dates from 3.8.80 to 20.11.1981 by means of cheques except one payment of Rs.
Rather it is stated that vendor had companystructed various floors and had assured represented to the vendee that she had a good and marketable title to the property and the same was free form all sorts of liens, charges, encumbrances or others like burdens, and in case any defect in the title of the vendor was later on proved, the vendor undertook to companypensate the vendee for all losses, damages and claims, which might be caused to him in this regard.
