High CourtsDivision Bench(1909) 11 MAD CK 0005

G. Narainsawmy Naidu Garu, Receiver, Nidadavole Estate vs Chellapalli Hanumanulu

Madras High Court · Decided on 4 November 1909 · Citation: 4 Ind. Cas. 398

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ralph Benson, O.C.J. · Krishnaswamy Iyer, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 203 words
1.

In the face of the specific instructions contained in Exhibits E and F, the defendant had no business to appropriate the amounts realised in

execution of the small cause decree towards his dues in other cases conducted by him, even if we are to assume a previous course of practice

according to which it was usual to make such appropriations. It is not suggested that these instructions were subsequently cancelled or varied. The

cases cited by Mr. Thiruvengadacharyar are good authority for the position that a solicitor has no right of retainer in monies realised by him in one

cause for his dues in others causes conducted by him. See Bazan v. Bolland, 48 R.R. 121 Mackenzie v. Mackintosh 64 L.T.N.S. 706. A pleader

in India has no larger rights. Section 217 of the Contract Act does not help the defendant. We must, therefore, reverse the decrees of the Courts

below. The plaintiff will have a decree for Rs. 556-14-4 with interest at 6 per cent. from the 1st June, 1903, to this date with further interest at 6

per cent on the whole sum until realisation not exceeding six months from this date. The plaintiff is entitled to his costs throughout.