HUTCHEEREGOWDA Vs. SANJEEVAGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit from which this appeal arises was filed to repel the terms of a compromise entered in O. S. 333/46-47 and to declare the decree passed therein as null and void. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the said decision was confirmed in the first appeal.

(2.) O. S. 333/46-47 was filed by defendants 1 to 3 of this suit, against the plaintiff and defendant 4 (pro forma) for declaration that the alienation of the properties made by their father was not binding on their interests. During the progress of the suit, a compromise was entered into under the terms of which the defendants Obtained certain portions of the properties involved in that suit. The compromise petition was signed by defendant 4 who was present in Court and the lawyer (Mr. H. Narayana Rao) who was appearing for all the defendants in that suit figned on their behalf. The ground upon which the suit is filed is that the compromise was entered into without the knowledge of the plaintiffs and that it was the result of fraud on the part of the lawyer in collusion with defendant 4. It has been found by the Courts below that there was no proot of either collusion or fraud on the part of the lawyer and that the com promise entered into was bona fide and in pursuance of the authorisation contained in the vakalatnama (the kannada version translated) to the effect that "we have hereby given full powers to agree to compromise on our behalf in the case." The appellants are thus concluded by the concurrent findings of fact and no interference is called for.

(3.) A point touching the validity of, and impeaching the power of the Advocate to enter into, the compromise, is raised. It is argued for the appellants that the general power stipulated in the vakalatnama was insufficient to enable the Advocate to act on his own responsibility so as to bind the appellants for the acts of the counsel, and that in addition it was incumbent on the part of the Advocate to have taken special authority before the compromise was agreed upon. I am unable to appreciate the contention, especially in view of the express authority contained in the vakalatnama.