The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent. Mr.Iswarapa (a practicing lawyer) in the Bar Council of Karnataka alleging professional misconduct on the following grounds.
1. The petitioner filed a partition suit against Grija Devi and Premadevi (O.S.No.293/87). The respondent Mr.Iswarappa was the general power of attorney holder of Smt. Girija Devi and Premadevi and also acted as Advocate for them in the said case. He misused his position as an Advocate and dominated the will of Girija Devi and Premadevi and purchased one portion of the suit property on 30-3-93 from them.
2. On 4-6092 Mr.Iswarappa took the signature of kirmani in a ten rupee bank bond paper promising to compromise the partition suit and thereafter committed theft of the same bond paper.
3. During the pendency of the partion suit Mr.Iswarappa often visited the house of the complainant in a drunken stage, through the complainant had asked him not to visit his house during the pendency of the suit.
4. Iswarappa has falsely filed a criminal case against the complainant (C.C.No.12/93) Which was dismissed after enquiry.
During the enquiry Iswarappa admitted that he was the general power of attorney of Girija Devi and Premadevi and has purchased their property for valuable consideration and paid the full amount and denied all other allegations.
The State Bar Council, after conducting a proper enquiry dismissed the complaint. Thereafter, the complainant filed an appeal before the Bar Council of India.
The Bar Council of India also dismissed the appeal on the following grounds.
1. The complainant had failed to prove that Mr.Iswarappa took signature of the complainant on a blank bond paper.
2. He has failed to prove that Iswarappa has purchased the property by misusing his power of attorney.
3. He failed to prove that Iswarappa acted as an Advocate for Girija Devi Premadevi in the partition suit. Iswarappa produced evidence that he never acted as council of pemadevi and Girijadevi in the partition suit and one Mr.AtchuthaGiri was the Advocate for them in that partition suit. Thus the complainant had failed to establish a case of professional misconduct against the respondent.