http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: P.D. GUPTA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAM MURTI & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/07/1997

BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T                  THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 1997 Present:               Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal               Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa Yogesh K.  Jain, Sr.  Adv., Pravir  K. Jian, M.A. Khan, B.K. Sharma, and Rajiv Dutta, Addvs. with him for the appellant In-person for the Respondent in No.1 The following  Judgment of the court was delivered : D.P. WADHWA, J.      The appellant  is an  advocate practising  in Delhi. He ha filed  this appeal under section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (  in short  the Act,) against order  dated May 4, 1996 of the  Disciplinary Committee  of 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  committed of the  Bar council  of Delhi   could  not  dispose  of  the complaint received  by it  with in 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 state Bar council to dispose of  the complaint  receive by it under section 35 of the Act  expeditiously   and in   any  case  to conclude the proceedings within  one 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  it s  role has  been guilty  of professional or other misconduct,  it shall   refer the case for disposal to its Disciplinary Committee.      One Srikishan  Dass died  on January  5,  1980  leaving behind extensive properties, both movable and immovable. One Vidya wati claiming to be the sister and the only legal heir of Srikishan  Dass 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  Srikishan Dass.  This   she filed  in February,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

1980.   It is  not that  there was any will. The complainant Ram Murti  (who is  now respondent before us ) and tow other persons also laid claim to the properties  of Srikishan Dass claiming themselves  to be   his heirs and propounding three different wills.  They also  filed separate proceeding under section 276 of the Indian succession Act before the District Judge, Delhi.  Since there was disoute regarding inheritance to the  properties of srikishan Dass, 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 No. 21. This suit was filed on February, 10 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 Srikishan  Dass have  also  been transferred from  the court of District Judge.  Delhi to the High court and are  being  tried alongwith the suit filed by Vidya wati  also filed various other  proceedings respecting the properties  left  by  deceased  Srikishan  Dass  against occupants  or  otherwise.    P.D.  Gupta,  advocate  who  is 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  Srikishan Dass on account of  pendency of various proceedings and further that the complainant  and others had alleged that she was in fact an imposter and her claim to be sister of Srikishan Dass was false   yet P.D.  Gupta purchase  ground floor   of property bearing No.   4858-A  24 Daryaganj  from Vidya Wati by sale- deed dated  December 30,  1982. The complainant also alleged that Vidya  Wati had  been describing  herself either as the real  sister,  step  sister  or  even  halfblood  sister  of Srikishan Dass 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 appealing  was also  brought to our notice that  second floor   of the property bearing No. 4858-A, 24 Daryaganj was purchased by  Suresh Kumar Gupta son-in-low  of the advocate P.D. Gupta   Sola the property purchased by him in November, 1987 for  a consideration  of Rs.  3,40,000/-  in  December, 1982.   It is   pointed  out that  the facts  relating    to purchase   of different  portions of property No. 4858-A, 24 Daryagnaj and  subsequent sale  by P.D.  Gupta in buying the property from  Vidya Wati in the circumstances aforesaid who had been  describing herself some time as half blood sister, real sister  or even  step-sister of  Srikishan Dass.    The explanation given  by P.D.  Gupta is  that though Vidya Wati was step-sister  of srikishan  Dass but   the  later  always

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

treated her  like her real sister and that is how vidya Wati also at times described herself as 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 ger 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  October 26, 1991 and Maya Devi on April 13, 1992, It is stated that P.P.  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 saledeeds executed by  Vidya Wati in favour of P.D. Gupta and his son- in low   Suresh  Kumar Gupta were without  any pressure from any one  and were  by free  will of  vidya Wati. P.D.  Gupta has claimed   that complaint filed by Ram Murti is motivated and he  himself had  no title to the properties of srikishan Dass being  no   relation 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 the court. In the  affidavit filed  by P.D.  Gupta   in answer  to  the complaint of  Ram Murti  he has  stated that "Lala Srikishan Dass left  behind his sister Smt.  Vidya  Wati who succeeded to the  estate on death of Lala Srikishan Dass and took over the entire  movable and  immovable  estate.  Thereafter  the complainant and  two other  persons propounded  will of Lala Srikishan Dass".   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 Srikishan Dass  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 plan  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 August 28,   1981.  It is  peculiar, rather  astounding,  how could Vidya Wati  get the  property of  Srikishan Dass  mutated in her name   when   she  is  yet  to  be  granted  letters  of administration or declaration  to her  title.      We  examined   the  two  sale-deeds  transferring  this property, one  executed in favour of P.D. Gupta and other in favour  of  his  son-in-law  Suresh  Kumar    Gupta  and  we complainant and the concerned parties."      In the  sale deed  which   is dated  December 30,  1982 executed in  favour of  P.D. Gupta   recitals  show that the agreement to  sale was  entered into   on September 3, 1980. The completion  certificate  of the building was obtained on August  28,  1981  Payment  of  Rs.  1,50000/-  made  before execution of  the sale  deed on various dates from 3.8.80 to 20.11.1981 by  means of  cheques except  one payment  of Rs. 10.000/- made by cash on September  3, 1980.  balance amount of consideration  of Rs.  30,000/- was  paid at  the time of registration of  the sale  deed there  is no  mention of any civil suit   respecting  this property  pending in  the High Court.   Rather it  is stated  that 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  form  all  sorts  of  liens,  charges, encumbrances or others  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

the other  sale deed  dated December  2,  1982  executed  in favour of  son-in-law of  P.D. Guta.  Which was filed during course of  hearing course  of hearing  of this appeal, it is mentioned that  after obtaining  completion  certificate  on August 28,1981  Vidya Wati  let out the second floor  of the property comprising  five rooms,  kitchen,  two bathrooms on monthly rent  of rupees  five hundred  to Suraj  Bhan Gupta. Recitals to  this deed  show that  in order  to retch better price Vidya  wati agreed  to sell  the property being second floor   which according  to her was not giving  good  return 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 November   5, 1981, second  payment of  Rs.  25,000/- on February 20, 1982 and third  of Rs.  30,000/- on  April  26,  1982.    Balance Payment has been made  at the time of execution of the  sale deed on December 2, 1982.      Bar Council  of India has taken  note  of the following facts: 1.   P.D. Gupta   claims to know  vidya wati since 1980 when Srikishan Dass 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 step-sister of Srikishan Dass. These contradictory stands in  fact cast  doubt ion  the very ekistence 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. 2.   P.D. Gupta   knew  that the  property purchased  by him from Vidya  wati was  subject   matter   of litigation   and title of vidya wati to that property  was in doubt. 3.   Hupe  property situated in Daryaganj Ganj was purchased by P.D.  Gupta  for a mere sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- in 1982. 4.   The agreement  for sale of property was entered into as for back  on  September 3,1980 and P.D. Gupta  had advancing money Vidya  Wati from time to time which went to show  that as per version of P.D. Gupta  knew Vidya Wati so closely how Vidya Wati  could take  contradictory stands  vis-a-vis  her relationship with Srikishan Dass.      Bar Council  of India   was thus of view  that  conduct of P.D.    Gupta    in  circumstance  s  was  unbecoming  of professional ethics  and conduct.      Bar Council of India also  observed :      " It  is acknowledged  fact that  a      lawyer conducting  the case  of his      client has  commanding  status  and      can expert influence of his client.      As a  member of  the Bar it is  our      common   knowledge  that    lawyers      have    lawyers     have    started      contracting with  the clients   and      enter   into baroains  that in case      of  success   he  will   shore  the      result.   Number  of  instanses  of      Motor Accident  Claims.   No  doubt      there is  no bar  for instances  to      purchase property  but on   account      of   common  prudence specially 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

    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  form practice      for a  period of  one year  so that      other erring lawyers  should  learn      a  lesson  and  refrain  themselves      form indulging in such practice."      The question which rises 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   held  that   a lawyer  was  guilty of professional misconduct particularly  on 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 grand-son   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 December 16 ,1922 Mr.   Jain explained  that as  to how  Vidya Wati  had  been varyingly described in various litigations was on account of instruction  form 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 substance 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  arguments 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 off his  hands of 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 property to a third person,  made profit and created  more complications  in the  pending suit.  P.D. Gupta   purchased the  properties  which were subject matter of 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 .  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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

We are  concerned with  the professional   conduct  of  P.D. Gupta   as a lawyer  conducting the case for his  client.  a lawyer owes  duty to  be fair not only to his client but  to the court as well as to the opposite party in the conduct of the case.   Administration of Justice is stream which has to be dept  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,  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 officer of the court. Here, P.D.  Gupta in  buying   the  property  as  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  of  the  trial touching   his professional  conduct as an advocate.  By his action he  has brought  the process  of administration    of justice in disrepute.      Bar council  of India  and state  Bar   councils    are statutory bodies  under   the Act.   These  bodies  performs varying functions   under the Act and the rules framed their under.  Bar   council  of  India    has  laid  standards  of professional conduct  for   the members.  code of conduct in the circumstances  can never be exhaustive.  Bar  council of India and  state Bar  councils are representative  bodies of the  Advocates   on  their  rolls    and  are  charged  with responsibility   of maintaining  discipline amongst  members and punish  those who  go astray  from the path of rectitude set out  for them.   In the present case the Bar  council of India, through  its disciolinary  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 charge  of professional  or other  misconduct by an advocate is  a serious  matter  and has to be considered and disposed of  by the  Disciplinary committee  of a  state Bar council expeditiously  and with  in period  of one year.  We are  unable   to  comprehend  as  to  why  the  Disciplinary Committee of  the Delhi Bar council could not dispose of the matter   within   the prescribed time  frame and it was left the apex  body to deal with it.      The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.