Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Narasimma Chariar Vs. Sinnavan

Narasimma Chariar vs Sinnavan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 06, 1896
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/781107

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Legal Practitioners Act - Act XVIII of 1879, Section 28--Oral agreement for pleader's remuneration--Criminal Proceedings--Quantum meruit. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Narasimma Chariar

Respondent

Sinnavan

Legal References

Cases Referred
Krishnasami v. Kesava I.L.R.
Reported In
(1897)ILR20Mad365

Excerpt

legal practitioners act - act xviii of 1879, section 28--oral agreement for pleader's remuneration--criminal proceedings--quantum meruit. - 1. we agree with the district munsif that section 28 of the legal practitioners act is applicable. the plaintiff may, however, recover reasonable remuneration for the work done by him for the benefit of the client on the principle quantum meruit, krishnasami v. kesava i.l.r. 14 mad. 63 .2. the district munsif refused to go into this question on the ground that the person benefited, viz., the second defendant, in the criminal case, was no party to the present suit. we observe, however, that the plaintiff would not have gone into court at all but for the guarantee given by the first defendant, and the latter would have been in that case undefended. the first defendant then derived benefit from the plaintiff going into court to defend him and the second defendant jointly. we think, therefore, that the plaintiff may recover reasonable remuneration for the services he rendered. we therefore set aside the decree of the district munsif with costs and direct him to restore the suit to his file and dispose of it on the merits.

Full Judgment

1. We agree with the District Munsif that Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners Act is applicable. The plaintiff may, however, recover reasonable remuneration for the work done by him for the benefit of the client on the principle quantum meruit, Krishnasami v. Kesava I.L.R. 14 Mad. 63 .

2. The District Munsif refused to go into this question on the ground that the person benefited, viz., the second defendant, in the criminal case, was no party to the present suit. We observe, however, that the plaintiff would not have gone into Court at all but for the guarantee given by the first defendant, and the latter would have been in that case undefended. The first defendant then derived benefit from the plaintiff going into Court to defend him and the second defendant jointly. We think, therefore, that the plaintiff may recover reasonable remuneration for the services he rendered. We therefore set aside the decree of the District Munsif with costs and direct him to restore the suit to his file and dispose of it on the merits.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial