CITATION;-

P.D GUPTA VERSES RAM MURTI &Anr on 8 july ,1997

PROVISION;-

As per the relevant sections 35, 36, 36B,37 and 38 of the advocates Act,1961 and service law-

Appeal against order holding appellant guilty of misconduct and suspending him from practice
for a period of 1 year-lawyer owes duty to be fair not only to his client but also to court as well
to opposite party in conduct of the case-Bar council of India and state Bar council are statutory
bodies under Act –bodies perform varying function under act and rules framed Bar council of
India laid standard of professional conduct for members-code of conduct never exhaustive –Bar
council of India are representative bodies of Advocates on their roles and charged with
responsibility of maintain discipline amongst members-bar council of India through its
disciplinary committee considered all relevant circumstances-appellant sold to the third person
made profit and created more complication in pending suit- properties purchased which were
subject matter of dispute-conduct of appellant cannot be said to be above board-held.
FACTS OF THE CASE;-

Shri kishan died on January 5, 1980 behind extensive properties ,both movable and immovable
property. Vidyawati was claiming o be the sister and the only heir of shrikishan dass filed aq
petition under section 276 of the Indian succession Act in the court of district judge, Delhi for
grant the estate of deceased .it is not that there was any will. The complainant ram murti
(respondent)and two other person also claim to the properties of shrikishan dass claiming
themselves to be his heirs and propounding three wills. And filed a separate proceeding under
section 276 of the India Succession Act before the district judge. After that vidyawati who called
her step sister or like a sister also filed a civil il suit in the Delhi high court against the various
defendant no 23 and 21.

The appellant is an advocate practicing in Delhi. He has filed the appeal under sections 38 of
advocate Act 1961,against order dated may 4,1996 of the disciplinary committee of Bar council
of India.

The disciplinary committee has found the appellant guilty of professional or other misconduct.
Bar council of India as well as supreme court of India observed following these facts ,these are
as under;-
-.P.D Gupta claims to know vidyawati closely and yet contradictory stands were taken by
vidyawati when she varyingly described herself as half-blood sister, real sister or step sister of
shrikrishan dass.

-P.D Gupta knew that the property purchased by him from vidyawati was subject matter of
litigation and title of vidyawati to that property was in doubt.

-Huge property situated in daryaganj jwas purchased by P.D Gupta for more sum of Rs 1,80,000
in 1982.

-The agreement for sale of property was entered into as far back on September 3,1980 and P.D
Gupta he knew vidyawati from time to time which went to show that as per version of P.D gupta
he knew vidyawati vis-à-vis her relationship with shrikishan dass.
ISSUES;

-Is P.D Gupta guilty of professional or other misconduct?

-Is the punishment awarded to him disproportionate to the professional or other misconduct of
which has been found guilty?

- why there are no ground to interfere with the punishment awarded to P.D Gupta in the
circumstances of the case?

-why the disciplinary committee of the Delhi Bar Council could not dispose of the matter within
the prescribed time framed and it was left the apex body to deal with?
EVEDENCE;-

-Bar council of India was thus of view that conduct of P.D Gupta in circumstances was
unbecoming of professional ethics and conduct.
-It is acknowledged fact that a lawyer conducting the case of his client has a commanding
status and can exert influence of his client.
-No doubt there is no bar for a lawyer to purchase the property but an account of common
prudence specially law knowing person will never prefer to purchase the property the title
of which is under doubt.
-As per the concerned case, the professional conduct of P.D.Gupta as a lawyer
conducting the case for his client.
-lawyer owes duty toward his client with clean and pure administration of justice.
-Administrative of justice is not something which concern the bench only, it concerned
the bar as well.
-while conducting the case he function as officer of the court, No one should be able to
raise a finger about his fairness of appellant has raised serious questions about his
fairness of the conduct of the trial touching his professional conduct as an advocate.
-vidyawati is the step sister or like the sister only,there was no will left didn’t mentioned
any heirs also.
.
-As opined by the CFSL/CBI laboratory,the will propounded by ram murti has been
found to be forged.
ARGUMENTS;-

FOR;-

- 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 hence forth the case of his client fearlessly.

-P.D Gupta was no longer concerned with the property as he had sold away the same.

-The argument that a charge had not been formulated appear to be more out of the
discontentment of P.D Gupta in being unable to meet the allegation.

-P.D Gupta says that he has washed off his hands of the property and thus is not guilty of any
misconduct.

AGAINST;-

Mr Ram murti put forth the following allegation against appellant P.D Gupta

-The appellant was knew about the subject matter and there was doubt cost on the right of
vidyawati inheriting the properties of kishan Dass amount of pendency of various proceedings.

-The complaint and others had alleged that she was in fact an imposter and her claim to be sister
of shrikishan dass was flase.Yet P.D Gupta purchased ground floor of property bearing no.

4858-A-24 daryaganj from vidyawati by sale deed –dated December 30,1982.

-The complaint also alleged that vidyawati had been describing herself either as the real
sister,step sisiter or even,half blood sister of shri kishan dass which facts was well known to P.D
gupta.
JUDGEMENT

In the given case no order as to costs and the appeal is dismissed.

OPINION

As per the case, my views in this regard ,is that property which purchased by advocate P.D
Gupta is totally unacceptable because advocate could not purchase property from the client
which property is subject matter of dispute between the parties in a court of the law .and it is
very disappointment act as being a lawyer. Lawyer means a person who practices or studies law,
who is qualified to advise people about law and represent them in court. But here lawyer self
involved in this dispute. The purpose of circumstances and fact of the case,I feel that
punishment awarded to him is the exemplary punishment so hat other erring lawyer should learn
a lesson and refrain themselves from indulging in such practice.

Another opinion regard vidyawati who called her as a step or like a sister of deceased of sri
kishan Dass , who filed a petition against defendant . is making confusing because there was no
any exact will of deceased property and did not mentioned any names of heirs also .Being a
blood sister or like a sister ,has a huge differences according to the Transfer of property Act
1882.so vidyawati who claimed as step sister has no authority to sought before the court.

Regarding ram murti claim he propounded will,as a heirs of the shrikishan property,afterthat CBI
labrotory found to be forged. I agree in this point ,because labrotory checked won’t get wrong.