Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The learned Judge, who is well conversant with both the systems of English Courts and Indian Courts in our view applied the common law rule to vakils also and there is no reason to doubt this clear authority.

19. Now we refer the dicta occurred in Krishnamachariar v. The Official Assignee of Madras (1932) ILR 55 Mad 455 : 62 Mad LJ 185 : (AIR 1932 Mad 256) relied on strongly by the petitioners, holding that an advocate cannot claim a particular lien for costs in the absence of a provision analogous to Solicitors Act, 1860. This observation was misconstrued as laying down a different rule for advocates and was also criticised by subsequent judgments stating that it requires reconsideration. (Vide Periakaruppan v. Subbarama Ayyar) AIR 1943 Mad 190.

20. We shall notice the facts of this case and the context of observations of the learned Judges. The appellant before the learned Judges was an advocate who put forward a claim before the Official Assignee for certain money due to him from the insolvent for the work done for the insolvent in probate proceedings in respect of which the insolvent was an executor and legatee. His claim for fees was upheld but he wanted a lien on the property of the testator who bequeathed the property to the insolvent. It was held that lien against estate of the testator could not be granted because no property of the testator was vested in the official assignee by reason of executor's insolvency and hence the insolvency Court could not have made an order directing the official assignee to satisfy the claim of the advocate out of the estate of the testator. Having rejected the claim on the ground that such a lien could not be granted out of the testator's estate, the learned Judges also observed that such a lien could not be granted as there is no enactment in this court recognising a particular lien for costs which is sanctioned by the Solicitors Act, 1860.

A perusal of this section indicates that it may broadly correspond to passive or retaining lien enumerated as the first type of lien in the Halsbury's Laws of England, first edition extracted above. However, two material differences can be noticed, (1) under common law the retaining lien extends only to taxable costs which include charges and expenses but this provision extends to the entire general balance of account due to the solicitor; (2) Section 171 speaks of general lien in respect of the goods bailed to the solicitor but not money as such whereas under common law the retaining lien extends to money belonging to the client in the hands of the solicitor. Compared with S. 170, Contract Act, S. 171 is a general lien in respect of amounts due to the solicitor whereas under particular lien as per S. 170 the bailee has got a lien in respect of remuneration due to him for the services rendered by him in respect of those very goods bailed.

27. It is pertinent to note the property in respect of which retaining lien can be claimed. As stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Para 227 :

"The general rule is that the retaining lien extends to any deed, paper or personal chattel which has come into the solicitor's possession in the course of his employment and in his capacity as solicitor, with the client's sanction and which is the client's property.......including money in a client account."

We have already seen that S. 170, Contract Act, specifically does not refer to money. However, S. 217, which defines general right of agent to retain money of the principal, is extended to advocates also. However, that lien must be confined to the costs incurred by the practitioner in that particular case only. It is not a general lien as in the case of S. 171, Contract Act.