- (1.) This appeal by special leave and the summons under R.30, O.4 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950, have been heard together and will be disposed of by this Judgment.
(2.) The appellant was an advocate of the Madras High Court of more than 25 year's standing, and was enrolled as an advocate of the Federal Court in the year 1939. As will presently appear, he has had a chequered career at the Bar. A full Bench of the for Madras High Court, for "grave professional misconduct." This Court having been apprised of the result of the proceedings against the appellant in the High Court, issued notice to him to show cause why he should not be suspended from practice in view of the findings recorded by the High Court.
(3.) 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 complainant, to complete a transaction of sale between the complainant and the owner of a house property in the city of Madras, whom we shall call, in the course 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. Before the appellant was engaged by the complainant, the bargain had been struck and the sale price of the property had been fixed at Rs. 15,000, out of which Rs. 1,300 had been paid to the vendor by way of earnest money. A retired Government servant named Sundararajayya who was a relation of the complainant it, and used to live near about the appellant's residence, had also helped the complainant in acquiring the property, and in that connection, used to give instructions to the appellant on behalf of the complainant. On 11-5-1951, the complainant sent, by way of a demand draft, the sum of Rs. 1,400, to the appellant, to meet the costs of stamp for the sale deed, and registration, and a fee of Rs. 150 to the appellant for his work in connection with the transaction. In the course of the enquiry into the title to the property, it was discovered that there was a mortgage on the property, of Rs. 5,500, on the basis of a registered mortgage deed which had been field in Court in connection with a litigation in respect of that very property, pending on the original side of the Madras High Court. By negotiation, it was settled that Rs. 5,500, out of the sale price, shall be rescued for the discharge of the mortgage debt, and that the remaining amount of the consideration, will be paid to the vendor on completion of the sale transaction and delivery of vacant possession of the property. The appellant wrote to the complainant that the latter should send him a demand draft for Rs. 5,600. 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 complainant. In due course, on or about 26-6-1951, a demand draft in the name of the appellant, for Rs. 5,600, was sent by the complainant for the express purpose of discharging the mortgage debt, aforesaid. On 21-8-1951, a cheque for Rs. 1,200, on 24-9-1951, a cheque for Rs. 500, and on 19-10-1951, a demand draft for Rs. 5,500, all in the name of the appellant, were sent by the complainant, in order to put him in funds for completing the transaction of sale for payment of the consideration money to the vendor. On 9-7-1951, the sale-deed was executed by some of the executants, and on 6-9-1951, it was executed by the remaining executants, and registered. Hence, it would appear that between 11-5-1951 and 24-10-1951, the complainant had paid to the appellant, the sum of Rs. 15,200, which was sufficient to pay the outstanding amount of the consideration for sale, namely, Rs. 13,700, including the mortgage amount, aforesaid, of Rs. 5,500; besides the costs of stamp and registration and the appellant's fees. But it appears that the vendor's portion of the consideration money, was paid by the appellant on 23-11-1951, after some avoidable delay due to him, and vacant delivery of possession given to the appellant as stipulated between the parties. It appears further that the complainant was in need of raising money on the security of the newly acquired property, and therefore, was anxious to receive all the documents of title including the mortgage bond duly discharged. But the appellant for reasons of his own, went on postponing the payment of the mortgagee money on some pretext or the other. On being pressed for the mortgage deed, duly discharged, being handed over to the complainant and as a result of a protracted correspondence, the appellant sent, to the complainant on 26-6-1952, a number of documents including "cancelled mortgage documents." It should be added here that the mortgage transaction of Rs. 5,500, had not been entered into by the owner of the property in order to discharge previous mortgages on the same property. All these documents had to be withdrawn from the High Court where they had been in the custody of the Court as already indicated. Unfortunately, Sundararajayya died on 28-6-1952. As a result of further correspondence, the complainant came to realise, to his cost, that the mortgage debt of Rs. 5,500, had been paid to the mortgagee, as arranged between the appellant and the 'complainant who had put him in funds with the express purpose of obtaining a clear title to the property which he had agreed to purchase. Thus, the complainant was reduced to the necessity of filing a regular petition of complainant in the High Court on 14-11-1952. In that petition of complaint, the complainant made copious quotation from the letters addressed by the appellant to him and made reference to the fact that the mortgagee had already instituted a suit in Court for recovery of the mortgage money, and had impleaded the complaint as party defendant to the suit. The gravamen of the charge against the appellant was that he had not discharged the outstanding mortgage on the property purchased, for which he had been supplied with ample funds by the complainant and that he had not disclosed how and in what manner, the complainant's money, meant for the purpose., had been utilized by the appellant.;