Case Summary
| Citation | |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | |
| Issues | |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | |
| Judgement | |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
D.P. WADHWA, J. – The appellant is an advocate practising in Delhi. He has filed this appeal
under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (“the Act”) against order dated 4-5-1996 of the
Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India holding him guilty of misconduct and
suspending him from practice for a period of one year. This order by the Bar Council of India was
passed as the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Delhi could not dispose of the
complaint received by it within a period of one year and proceedings had thus been transferred to
the Bar Council of India under Section 36-B of the Act. Section 36-B enjoins upon the Disciplinary
Committee of the State Bar Council to dispose of the complaint received by it under Section 35 of
the Act expeditiously and in any case to conclude the proceedings within one year from the date of
the receipt of the complaint or the date of initiation of the proceedings if at the instance of the State
Bar Council. Under Section 35 of the Act where on the receipt of a complaint or otherwise the State
Bar Council has reason to believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or
other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its Disciplinary Committee.
- One SrikishanDass died on 5-1-1980 leaving behind extensive properties, both moveable and
immovable. One Vidya Wati claiming to be the sister and the only legal heir of SrikishanDass filed
a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act in the Court of District Judge, Delhi for
grant of probate/letters of administration to the estate of deceased SrikishanDass. This she filed in
February 1980. It is not that there was any Will. The complainant Ram Murti (who is now
respondent before us) and two other persons also laid claim to the properties of SrikishanDass
claiming themselves to be his heirs and propounding three different Wills. They also filed separate
proceedings under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act before the District Judge, Delhi. Since
there was dispute regarding inheritance to the properties of SrikishanDass, Vidya Wati also filed a
civil suit in the Delhi High Court for declaration and injunction against various defendants
numbering 23, including the complainant Ram Murti who is Defendant 21. This suit was filed on
10-2-1982. Vidya Wati had prayed for a decree of injunction against the defendants restraining
them from trespassing into property bearing No. 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. She also sought a declaration that she was the
absolute owner of the properties mentioned therein in the Schedule. It is not necessary for us to
detail the properties shown in Schedule A except to note two properties at 24 Daryaganj, New Delhi
bearing No. 4852 and 4852-A. It is stated that this suit is still pending in the Delhi High Court and
all the proceedings under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act filed by various persons relating
to the estate of SrikishanDass have also been transferred from the Court of District Judge, Delhi to
the High Court and are being tried along with the suit filed by Vidya Wati as aforesaid. - It would appear that Vidya Wati also filed various other proceedings respecting the properties
left by deceased SrikishanDass against the occupants or otherwise. P.D. Gupta, Advocate, who is
the appellant before us had been her counsel throughout in all these proceedings. The complaint
alleged against him is that though he knew that there was doubt cast on the right of Vidya Wati
inheriting the properties of SrikishanDass on account of pendency of various proceedings and
further that the complainant and others had alleged that she was in fact an impostor and her claim to
be sister of SrikishanDass was false yet P.D. Gupta purchased the ground floor of property bearing
No. 4858-A, 24 Daryaganj from Vidya Wati by a sale deed dated 30-12-1982. The complainant also
264
alleged that Vidya Wati had been describing herself either as the real sister, stepsister or even halfblood sister of SrikishanDass which fact was well known to P.D. Gupta, her counsel. - It is not for us to go into the merits or demerits of the controversy raised by the parties in
various proceedings pending in the courts and still awaiting adjudication, the grievance of the
complainant is as to how an advocate could purchase property from his client which property is the
subject-matter of dispute between the parties in a court of law. During the course of hearing of this
appeal it was also brought to our notice that the second floor of the property bearing No. 4858-A, 24
Daryaganj was purchased by Suresh Kumar Gupta, son-in-law of Advocate P.D. Gupta from Vidya
Wati. Then again it was brought to our notice that Advocate P.D. Gupta sold the property purchased
by him in November 1987 for a consideration of Rs 3,40,000 when he himself had purchased the
property for Rs 1,80,000 in December 1982. It is pointed out that the facts relating to purchase of
different portions of property No. 4858-A, 24 Daryaganj and subsequent sale by P.D. Gupta were
not brought on record of the said suit filed by Vidya Wati. - Be that as it may the Bar Council of India has commented upon the conduct of P.D. Gupta in
buying the property from Vidya Wati in the circumstances aforesaid who had been describing
herself sometimes as a half-blood sister and sometimes as real sister or even stepsister of
SrikishanDass. The explanation given by P.D. Gupta is that though Vidya Wati was the stepsister of
SrikishanDass but the latter always treated her like his real sister and that is how Vidya Wati also at
times described herself as his real sister. - There are some more facts which could also be noted. Vidya Wati herself has died and she is
stated to be survived by her only daughter Maya Devi who is also now dead. 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. Vidya Wati died on 26-10-
1991 and Maya Devi on 13-4-1992. It is stated that P.P. Bansal, husband of Maya Devi and father
of Anand Prakash Bansal, has been acting as General Attorney of Vidya Wati and instructing P.D.
Gupta. - In support of his case P.D. Gupta filed affidavit of Anand Prakash Bansal wherein it is
claimed that sale deeds executed by Vidya Wati in favour of P.D. Gupta and his son-in-law Suresh
Kumar Gupta were without any pressure from anyone and were by free will of Vidya Wati. P.D.
Gupta has claimed that the complaint filed by Ram Murti is motivated and he himself had no title to
the properties of SrikishanDass being no relative of his and the Will propounded by him had been
found to be forged as opined by the CFSL/CBI laboratory. The fact that the Will propounded by
Ram Murti is forged or not is still to be decided by the Court. In the affidavit filed by P.D. Gupta, in
answer to the complaint of Ram Murti, he has stated that “Lala SrikishanDass left behind his sister
Smt Vidya Wati who succeeded to the estate on the death of Lala SrikishanDass and took over the
entire moveable and immovable estate. Thereafter the complainant and two other persons
propounded the Will of Lala SrikishanDass”. This statement of P.D. Gupta has been verified by him
as true and correct to his knowledge. It does appear to us to be rather odd for a lawyer to verify such
facts to his knowledge. It is claimed that when SrikishanDass died, subject immovable property was
plot bearing No. 4858-A, 24 Daryaganj measuring 1500 sq. feet and the same was got mutated in
the name of Vidya Wati in the records of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and then she got plans
sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for construction of the house on this plot and
which she did construct and got completion certificate on 28-8-1981. It is peculiar, rather
astounding, how Vidya Wati could get the property of SrikishanDass mutated in her name when she
is yet to be granted letters of administration or declaration to her title.
265 - We examined the two sale deeds transferring this property, one executed in favour of P.D.
Gupta and the other in favour of his son-in-law Suresh Kumar Gupta and we have also examined
the proceedings on the basis of which the Bar Council of India came to the conclusion that P.D.
Gupta was guilty of misconduct and he be debarred from practising for the period of one year.
When Ram Murti complained that P.D. Gupta had fraudulently purchased the property of deceased
SrikishanDass being the entire ground floor property bearing No. 4858-A, 24 Daryaganj, Delhi as
per sale deed executed on 30-12-1982 from Vidya Wati as also in the name of his son-in-law Suresh
Kumar, son of Suraj Bhan, knowing fully well that Vidya Wati was not the owner of the property,
the reply given by P.D. Gupta is as under:
“5. Para 5 as stated is false, misleading and ill-motivated, in view of the above
submissions. This respondent did purchase the ground floor portion from Smt Vidya Wati
by a registered sale deed and sold the same by a registered sale deed in November 1987,
and has no longer any concern with any of the properties of Smt Vidya Wati. (As per) the
information of the respondent, no proceedings disputing the title of Smt Vidya Wati or
cancellation of sale deed in favour of any of the buyers from Smt Vidya Wati who are more
than 20 in number, has been filed so far. One of such buyers is Shri P.P. Sharma, the exRegistrar of the Delhi High Court. This respondent believed Smt Vidya Wati as the right
owner according to the facts and law and sold it as aforesaid. The applicant is in no way
concerned with the rights of the respondent and the matter pending for adjudication is
between the complainant and the parties concerned.” - In the sale deed which is dated 30-12-1982 executed in favour of P.D. Gupta recitals show
that the agreement for sale was entered into on 3-9-1980. The completion certificate of the building
was obtained on 28-8-1981, payment of Rs 1,50,000 made before execution of the sale deed
on various dates from 3-8-1980 to 20-11-1981 by means of cheques except one payment of Rs
10,000 made by cash on 3-9-1980. Balance amount of consideration of Rs 30,000 was paid
at the time of registration of the sale deed. In the sale deed there is no mention of any civil suit
respecting this property pending in the High Court. Rather it is stated that the vendor had
constructed 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 from all sorts of liens, charges, encumbrances
or other like burdens, and in case any defect in the title of the vendor was later on proved, the
vendor undertook to compensate the vendee for all losses, damages and claims, which might be
caused to him in this regard. In the other sale deed dated 2-12-1982 executed in favour of the sonin-law of P.D. Gupta, which was filed during the course of the hearing of this appeal, it is
mentioned that after obtaining completion certificate on 28-8-1981 Vidya Wati let out the second
floor of the property comprising five rooms, kitchen, two bathrooms on a monthly rent of rupees
five hundred to Suraj Bhan Gupta. Recitals to this deed show that in order to fetch a better price
Vidya Wati agreed to sell the property being on the second floor which according to her was not
giving good returns for consideration of Rs 1,75,000 to Suresh Kumar Gupta. Now this Suresh
Kumar Gupta, son-in-law of P.D. Gupta, is no other person than the son of Suraj Bhan Gupta, the
tenant. There is no mention of any agreement to sell in this sale deed but what we find is that first
payment of Rs 20,000 towards consideration was made on 5-11-1981, second payment of Rs
25,000 on 20-2-1982 and third of Rs 30,000 on 26-4-1982. Balance payment has been made
at the time of execution of the sale deed on 2-12-1982. - The Bar Council of India has taken note of the following facts:
- P.D. Gupta claims to know Vidya Wati since 1980 when SrikishanDass was alive.
He knew Vidya Wati closely and yet contradictory stands were taken by Vidya Wati when
she varyingly described herself as half-blood sister, real sister or stepsister of
266
SrikishanDass. These contradictory stands in fact cast doubt on the very existence of Vidya
Wati herself. This also created doubt about bona fides of P.D. Gupta who seemed to be a
family lawyer of Vidya Wati. - P.D. Gupta knew that the property purchased by him from Vidya Wati was the
subject-matter of litigation and title of Vidya Wati to that property was in doubt. - Huge property situated in Daryaganj was purchased by P.D. Gupta for a mere sum of
Rs 1,80,000 in 1982. - The agreement for sale of property was entered into as far back on 3-9-1980 and
P.D. Gupta had been advancing money to Vidya Wati from time to time which went to
show that as per the version of P.D. Gupta he knew Vidya Wati quite well. When P.D.
Gupta knew Vidya Wati so closely how could Vidya Wati take contradictory stands vis-àvis her relationship with SrikishanDass? - The Bar Council of India was thus of the view that the conduct of P.D. Gupta in the
circumstances was unbecoming of professional ethics and conduct. The Bar Council of India also
observed:
“It is an acknowledged fact that a lawyer conducting the case of his client has a
commanding status and can exert influence on his client. As a member of the Bar it is in
our common knowledge that lawyers have started contracting with the clients and enter into
bargains that in case of success he will share the result. A number of instances have been
found in the cases of Motor Accident Claims. No doubt there is no bar for a lawyer to
purchase property but on account of common prudence specially a law-knowing person
will never prefer to purchase the property, the title of which is under doubt.”
Finally it said:
“But for the purpose of the present complaint, having regard to all the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Committee is of the opinion that the conduct of the
respondent is patently unbecoming of a lawyer and against professional ethics.
Consequently, we feel that as an exemplary punishment, Shri P.D. Gupta should be
suspended from practice for a period of one year so that other erring lawyers should learn a
lesson and refrain themselves from indulging in such practice.” - The question which arises for consideration is:
In view of the aforementioned facts is P.D. Gupta guilty of professional or other
misconduct and if so is the punishment awarded to him disproportionate to the professional
or other misconduct of which he has been found guilty? - Mr Y.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant P.D. Gupta, submitted that if in a
case like this it was held that a lawyer was guilty of professional misconduct particularly on a
complaint filed by an interested person like Ram Murti no lawyer would be able to conduct
henceforth the case of his client fearlessly. Mr Jain said that the aggrieved person, if any, in this
case would have been either Vidya Wati, her daughter Maya Devi or her grandson Anand Prakash
Bansal and neither of them had complained. It was also submitted that though the property was
purchased by P.D. Gupta in late 1982 the complaint by Ram Murti was filed only on 16-12-1992.
Mr Jain explained that as to how Vidya Wati had been varyingly described in various litigations
267
was on account of instruction from her or her attorney and it was no fault of P.D. Gupta on that
account. Then it was submitted that no specific charges had been framed in the disciplinary
proceedings which had caused prejudice to P.D. Gupta in the conduct of his defence. Lastly, it was
contended that P.D. Gupta was no longer concerned with the property as he had sold away the
same. - There appears to be no substance in the submissions of Mr Jain. P.D. Gupta was fully aware
of the allegations he was to meet. It was not a complicated charge. He has been sufficiently long in
practice. The argument that a charge had not been formulated appears to be more out of the
discontentment of P.D. Gupta in being unable to meet the allegation. Now, P.D. Gupta says that he
has washed his hands off the property and thus he is not guilty of any misconduct. That is not the
issue. It is his conduct in buying the property, the subject-matter of litigation between the parties,
from his client on which he could exercise undue influence especially when there was a doubt cast
on his client’s title to the property. Had P.D. Gupta sold the property back to Vidya Wati and got
the sale deed in his favour cancelled something could have been said in his favour. But that is not
so. He sold the property to a third person, made profit and created more complications in the
pending suit. P.D. Gupta purchased the properties which were the subject-matter of the dispute for
himself and also for his son-in-law at almost throw-away prices and thus he himself became a party
to the litigation. The conduct of P.D. Gupta cannot be said to be above board. It is not material that
Vidya Wati or anyone claiming through her has not complained against him. We are concerned with
the professional conduct of P.D. Gupta as a lawyer conducting the case for his client. A lawyer
owes a duty to be fair not only to his client but also to the court as well as to the opposite party in
the conduct of the case. Administration of justice is a stream which has to be kept pure and clean. It
has to be kept unpolluted. Administration of justice is not something which concerns the Bench
only. It concerns the Bar as well. The Bar is the principal ground for recruiting Judges. No one
should be able to raise a finger about the conduct of a lawyer. While conducting the case he
functions as an officer of the court. Here, P.D. Gupta in buying the property has in effect subverted
the process of justice. His action has raised serious questions about his fairness in the conduct of the
trial touching his professional conduct as an advocate. By his action he has brought the process of
administration of justice into disrepute. - The Bar Council of India and the State Bar Councils are statutory bodies under the Act.
These bodies perform varying functions under the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The Bar
Council of India has laid standards of professional conduct for the members. The code of conduct in
the circumstances can never be exhaustive. The Bar Council of India and the State Bar Councils are
representative bodies of the advocates on their rolls and are charged with the responsibility of
maintaining discipline amongst members and punishing those who go astray from the path of
rectitude set out for them. In the present case the Bar Council of India, through its Disciplinary
Committee, has considered all the relevant circumstances and has come to the conclusion that P.D.
Gupta, Advocate is guilty of misconduct and we see no reason to take a different view. We also find
no ground to interfere with the punishment awarded to P.D. Gupta in the circumstances of the case. - The appeal is dismissed.
