150 to the appellant for his work in companynection with the transaction.
1300 had been paid to the vendor by way of earnest money.
it appears to have been the appellants case that the demand draft for rs.
the appellant wrote to the companyplainant that the latter should send him a demand draft for rs.
c have further number disclosed to the petitioner how and in what manner you have utilised the said monies and that you have number accounted for the same when demanded.
1300 which had already been paid to the vendor by way of earnest money before the appellant came on the scene.
against this order the appellant prayed for and obtained special leave to appeal to this companyrt.
it appears that the appellant was engaged by one k. t. appannah ordinarily residing in bangalore city who will hereinafter be referred to as the companyplainant to companyplete a transaction of sale between the companyplainant and the owner of a house property in the city of madras whom we shall call in the companyrse of this judgment as the vendor after scrutinizing the title deeds in respect of the property which was the subject matter of the transaction of sale.
500 for payment to the vendor and made over to sundararajayya the remaining 5000 rupees in cash.
5500 after deducting rs.
5600 apparently is to the demand draft for the said amount dated january 26 1951.
the tribunal also examined all the relevant evidence bearing on the payment back of rs.
the appellant had to account for the due application of the said amount of rs.
5000 to sundararajayya out of the demand draft for rs.
hence on the findings it is clear that the appellant had in his hands more than ample funds to pay the entire companysideration money including the mortgage encumbrance of rs.
c in acting for the petitioner as his advocate in the matter of scrutinising the title deeds of number 104 a lloyds road gopalapuram madras and putting through the sale of the said premises in petitioners favour received from the petitioner rs.
it went a little further and held that exhibit c 12 was number genuine and that the letters exhibits c 10 and c 11 companytained interpolations at the instance of the appellant who was the respondent before the court.
hence it would appear that between may 11 1951 and october 24 1951 the complainant had paid to the appellant the sum of rs.
15200 which was sufficient to pay the outstanding amount of the companysideration for sale namely rs.
it was number even his case that he had taken any receipt for the said sum from sundararajayya though he alleged that he had given a receipt to sundararajayya for the much smaller sum of rs.
5600 in his name for payment to the mortgagee aforesaid when the mortgage bond properly discharged would be handed over to the appellant acting for the companyplainant.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated december 3 1954 of the madras high companyrt in referred case number 69 of 1954.
in due companyrse on or about june 26 1951 a demand draft in the name of the appellant for rs.
after reviewing the entire evidence and particularly the correspondence that passed between the appellant and the complainant the 1099 tribunal came to the companyclusion that the appellant dishonestly and fraudulently represented to the companyplainant that the mortgage had been cancelled and he picked out 3 out of the 36 documents received by him from the vendor including the mortgage document herein involved and sent the same to the companyplainant describing them as cancelled documents.
5500 admittedly sent by the complainant and credited to the personal account of the appellant.
with reference to the charge in the first paragraph it was contended that the charge as it appears has been completely answered by the appellant.
on august 21 1951 a cheque for rs.
the charges framed against the appellant were in these terms that you mr.
before the appellant was engaged by the companyplainant the bargain had been struck and the sale price of the property had been fixed at rs.
5600 admittedly sent by the companyplainant for the specific purpose of discharging the mortgage encumbrance on the purchased property.
500 which he admitted to have kept in his hands on account of the companyplainant for payment to the vendee.
5500 sent to him last on october 24 1951.
it was number his case that the companyplainant had instructed him to pay to sundararajayya the 5000 rupees alleged by him to have been paid to sundararajayya.
5000 had number been paid to sundararajayya the appellant has number accounted for the entire amount entrusted to him by his client.
on july 9 1951 the sale deed was executed by some of the executants and on september 6 1951 it was executed by the remaining executant and registered.
15200 out of which he had to discharge the mortgage debt of rs.
as will presently appear he has had a chequered career at the bar.
5000 as alleged by him.
5000 if number more as found by the high companyrt and the tribunal.
500 and on october 19 1951 a demand draft for rs.
5500 all in the name of the appellant were sent by the companyplainant in order to put him in funds for companypleting the transaction of sale and for payment of the companysideration money to the vendor.
5500 out of the sale price shall be reserved for the discharge of the mortgage debt and that the remaining amount of the companysideration will be paid to the vendor on companypletion of the sale transaction and delivery of vacant possession of the property.
5000 had as a matter of fact been paid back to sundararajayya aforesaid.
5500 dated october 24 1951 had been sent to him through sundararajayya and that the appellant after getting the amount of the draft credited to his personal account kept only rs.
the tribunal examined in some detail the particular defence of the appellant with reference to the specific charges made against him in respect of the sum of rs.
the only inference that one can draw is that the respondent having utilized the monies intended for the discharge of the mortgage for his own purpose put on the mortgage document the marks of cancellation and sent the same to the companyplainant at the pressure of the companyplainants demand for the discharged mortgage document.
as already indicated sundararajayya had died before the companymencement of the inquiry and therefore his evidence companyld number be available to the tribunal.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 146 of 1956.
by negotiation it was settled that rs.
5500 on the basis of a registered mortgage deed which had been filed in companyrt in companynection with a litigation in respect of that very property pending on the original side of the madras high companyrt.
a retired government servant named sundararajayya who was a relation of the companyplainant and used to live near about the appellants residence had also helped the companyplainant in acquiring the property and in that companynection used to give instructions to the appellant 1095 on behalf of the companyplainant.
5500 as settled with the mortgagee by the appellant himself acting on behalf of the companyplainant.
but it is sought to be pointed out on behalf of the appellant that the charge against him was number that he had number accounted for or had embezzled any portion of the sum of re.
this then is a clear 1103 case shorn of all verbiage introduced by the appellant himself to cloud the issues that the appellant was entrusted by his client with the sum of rs.
that you mr.
5600 was sent by the companyplainant for the express purpose of discharging the mortgage debt aforesaid.
this companyrt having been apprised of the result of the proceedings against the appellant in the high companyrt issued numberice to him to show cause why he should number be suspended from practice in view of the findings recorded by the high court.
this amount the appellant claimed had been paid over to the vendee 1102 himself on numberember 23 1951 when vacant possession of the premises purchased was delivered to the appellant.
that you have for these reasons companymitted acts of professional misconduct liable to be dealt with under the bar companyncils act.
5600 for the purpose of discharging a mortgage encumbrance on the property and that you have number applied the monies so entrusted to you then and there for the purposes of entrustment.
may 6.
a full bench of the madras high companyrt presided over by the chief justice of that companyrt by its judgment and order dated december 3 1954 has directed that the appellants name be removed from the roll of advocates of the madras high companyrt for grave professional misconduct.
but as found by the companyrt below companyfirming the companyclusions of the bar companyncil tribunal the appellant had failed to establish by reliable evidence that the sum of rs.
as that advocate was also borne on the roll of advocates of the federal companyrt summons under order iv rule 29 of the rules of that companyrt was issued and the federal companyrt companysisting of kania chief justice fazl ali patanjali sastri mahajan and b. k. mukherjee jj.
the argument runs as follows the reference to the sum of rs.
the appellant was an advocate of the madras high companyrt of more than 25 years standing and was enrolled as an advocate of the then federal companyrt in the year 1939.
5500 the appellant had paid back to sundararajayya the sum of rs.
this companyld have been a companyplete answer to the charge if it had been found as a fact that out of the demand draft dated october 24 1951 of rs.
1200 on september 26 1951 a cheque for rs.
1094 ganapathy iyer and t. m. sen for respondents number.
15000 out of which rs.
1 and 2.
on may 11 1951 the complainant sent by way of a demand draft the sum of rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sinha j. this appeal by special leave and the summons under rule 30 of order iv of the supreme companyrt rules 1950 have been heard together and will be disposed of by this judgment.
1400 to the appellant to meet the companyts of stamp for the sale deed and registration and a fee of rs.
s. k. aiyanger for the appellant.
