R PARAMASHIVAIAH vs SRI. MANJUNATHA.V.,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43230
RFA No. 132 of 2026
R
CNR: KAHC010048802026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.132 OF 2026 (MON)
BETWEEN:
1. R. PARAMASHIVAIAH,
S/O. K.R.RUDRARADHY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT REDDY MILITARY HOTEL,
OPP: TO BIG MARKET, CHANDAPURA,
ANEKAL MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 100.
AND ALSO AT
R. PARAMASHIVAIAH,
S/O. K.R.RUDRARADHY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
C/O. DHARNEESH BAKERY,
P.S.V. NAGANNA COMPLEX,
CHANDAPURA CIRCLE, NEAR BANK OF INDIA.
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 100.
2. R. GUNASHEKARA,
S/O. K.R.RUDRARADHYA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
REDDY MILITARY HOTEL,
OPP TO BIG MARKET,
CHANDAPURA, ANEKAL MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 100.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S. V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by MADHURI S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43230
RFA No. 132 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010048802026
AND:
1. SRI. MANJUNATHA.V.,
S/O. LATE. VENKATESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
ADVOCATE,
RESIDING AT NO.289,
TH
18 CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
ALSO AT
SRI. MANJUNATHA. V.,
S/O. LATE. VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
VENKATESHAIAH LAYOUT,
CHANDAPURA, ANEKAL MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 100.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. YOGESH M., ADVOCATE) (CP.729/26)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED.23.09.2025 PASSED IN OS
NO.8412/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-32), BENGALURU CITY
AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43230
RFA No. 132 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010048802026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the
consent of both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. This Regular First Appeal is filed by the
appellants/defendants calling in question the judgment
and decree dated 23.09.2025 passed in O.S.No.8412/2023
on the file of XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
1
(CCH-32), Bengaluru City , thereby, the suit filed for
recovery of money was decreed, as it is payment towards
professional fees and it is ordered to pay interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till its
realization.
3. For the sake of convenience and easy
reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings
before the Trial Court.
1
hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43230
RFA No. 132 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010048802026
4. The plaintiff is an Advocate by profession. The
defendants have approached the plaintiff to conduct cases
on behalf of them in respect of cases of land acquisition by
the State Authorities. The plaintiff, being an Advocate by
profession, appeared on behalf of the defendants, as the
defendants had engaged the services of an Advocate to
get relief in the Land Acquisition Cases (LAC). The plaintiff
has made pleadings that in many LAC cases, the plaintiff
has appeared and obtained relief for the defendants.
5. It is the case of the plaintiff that it was the
claim of the defendants that the defendants had agreed to
pay 2% of professional fees on the compensation amount
awarded to the defendants, but the defendants had not
paid the said agreed professional fees; therefore, the
plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for recovery of
money of his professional fees.
6. The defendants have appeared through an
Advocate and filed written statement denying the
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43230
RFA No. 132 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010048802026
averments made in the plaint. The defendants have also
denied that the plaintiff has not appeared in the LAC cases
and obtained relief on behalf of them. Hence, the
defendants have totally denied the case of the plaintiff.
Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit.
7. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court has
framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he has
rendered professional service to the defendants
without obtaining professional charges from
them as pleaded in the plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendants had orally agreed to pay 2% of the
entire amount released in their favour as
contended by the plaintiff?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief
claimed in the plaint?
4. What order or decree?
8. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff is
examined as PW-1 and one more attesting witness is
examined as PW-2 and got marked documentary evidence
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43230
RFA No. 132 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010048802026
as Exs.P-1 to P-20. On behalf of the defendants, defendant
No.1 is examined as DW-1 and got marked documentary
evidence as Ex.D-1.
9. The Trial Court has decreed the suit in part by
granting decree directing the defendants to pay a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- towards professional fees of the
plaintiff/Advocate, along with interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
The Trial Court, on the issues framed has assigned
reasons that the agreement between the plaintiff/Advocate
and the defendants for payment of 2% of professional fees
on the compensation amount determined by the Trial
Court in LAC cases is not as per law; therefore, the said
contract between the plaintiff and defendants is against
the law. Hence, determination of the professional fees of
Rs.5,00,000/- in considering the services of an Advocate,
such as filing Vakalat, applications, claim statements,
attending Court and the standard of professional
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43230
RFA No. 132 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010048802026
remuneration and considering various factors of
conducting the cases professionally, therefore, the Trial
Court has determined the professional fees of
Rs.5,00,000/- in lump sum, payable by the defendants to
the plaintiff along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from
the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
10. Being aggrieved by the decreeing of the suit in
part, the appellants/defendants have preferred this instant
appeal by raising various grounds in the appeal
memorandum and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellants/defendants argued in consonance with
the grounds raised in the appeal memorandum that the
Trial Court without assigning any reasons has determined
the professional fees of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest
at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the suit till its
realization, which is without any basis or reasons. Fixing a
lump sum of professional fees is not correct approach; the
Trial Court ought to have determined the amount of
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43230
RFA No. 132 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010048802026
professional fees based at least on some aspects on its
probabilities, but without doing so, fixing professional fees
of Rs.5,00,000/- is arbitrary.
11. Further, it is submitted that the plaintiff has
only appeared in few cases and for which determination of
professional fees of Rs.5,00,000/- is exorbitant. Hence,
prays to reduce the quantum of professional fees and in
support of the arguments, he places reliance on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.
2
SUNITHA VS. STATE OF TELENGANA AND ANOTHER
(B. Sunitha’s case) . Therefore, it is submitted that when
the plaintiff has not done much work on behalf of the
defendants, determining the professional fees of
Rs.5,00,000/- is arbitrary and on the higher side. Hence,
prays to modify the judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court.
2
(2018) 1 SCC 638
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43230
RFA No. 132 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010048802026
12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the
plaintiff is an Advocate by profession and at the request of
the defendants, the plaintiff has provided his professional
services to the defendants for nearly four years by
appearing before various Courts when the land of the
defendants was acquired; therefore, the plaintiff has put
his hard labour in getting the cases decided through the
Court of law and enabled the defendants to obtain
compensation. Hence, whatever professional fees
determined by the Trial Court is correct.
13. Further, it is submitted that the Trial Court
though in lump sum has determined the professional fees
of Rs.5,00,000/-, but has given reasons considering the
professional fees to be adopted by any Advocate, but the
Trial Court judgment does not include the travelling
expenses. Therefore, it is submitted that on all its
probabilities, the amount determined by the Trial Court is
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43230
RFA No. 132 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010048802026
proper and hence, no need to interfere with the judgment
and decree passed by the Trial Court. Thus, prays to
dismiss the appeal.
14. After hearing the arguments of the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and upon
perusal of the materials available at this stage, the
following points would arise for consideration:
i. Whether, under the facts and
circumstances involved in the case, the
respondent/plaintiff proves that he has
rendered professional services to the
defendants in LAC cases, as explained in
detail in the plaint, thereby enabling the
defendants to receive compensation of
their land acquired by the Authorities?
ii. Whether, under the facts and
circumstances involved in the case, the
amount of professional fees determined by
the Trial Court, directing the defendants to
pay the same to the plaintiff, is arbitrary
and on the higher side?
iii. Whether, under the facts and
circumstances involved in the case, the
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43230
RFA No. 132 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010048802026
defendants prove that they have not
availed services of plaintiff for their land
acquisition cases, when the defendants’
lands were acquired by the Authorities?
iv. Whether the judgment and decree passed
by the Trial Court require interference by
this Court?
15. The plaintiff is an Advocate by profession and
being a member of Advocates Association, Bengaluru, is
not in dispute. The defendants are the owners of certain
lands and their lands were acquired by the
Government/Authorities, which is also not in dispute. It is
the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have availed
themselves of the services of the plaintiff as an Advocate
in land acquisition cases for getting compensation from the
Authorities/Government. Accordingly, the plaintiff agreed
to provide professional services to the defendants. It is
contention of the plaintiff that there was an agreement
that the defendants shall pay 2% of the amount of
compensation out of the total compensation disbursed to
the defendants; however, no such agreement has been
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43230
RFA No. 132 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010048802026
produced by the plaintiff. The Trial Court has determined
the total professional fees in a lump sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
the suit till its realization.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of
B. Sunita (supra) has observed that the claim of an
Advocate based on a share in the subject matter amounts
to professional misconduct and is against ethics and it is
held at Paragraph Nos.13, 14 and 15 as follows:
“13. The Bombay High Court in High Court of
Bombay v. K.L. Gauba held that fees
conditional on the success of a case and which
gives the lawyer an interest in the subject-
matter tends to undermine the status of the
profession. The same has always been
condemned as unworthy of the legal
profession. If an advocate has interest in
success of litigation, he may tend to depart
from ethics.
14. In G, Senior Advocate, In this Court held
that the claim of an advocate based on a
share in the subject-matter is a professional
misconduct. In V.C. Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan
(SCC para 31), it was observed that relation
between a lawyer and his client is highly
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43230
RFA No. 132 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010048802026
fiduciary in nature. The advocate is in the
position of trust.
15. Rule 20 of Part VI, Chapter II, Section II
of the Standard of Professional Conduct and
Etiquette reads as follows:
“ 20 . An advocate shall not stipulate for
a fee contingent on the results of
litigation or agree to share the
proceeds thereof.”
17. Therefore, the Trial Court is correct in decreeing
the suit based on the agreement between the plaintiff and
defendants for payment of 2% on the total compensation
received by the defendants. To this extent, the Trial Court
is correct in declining the request of the plaintiff.
18. Therefore, fixation of fees by an advocate based
on some percentage of the total claim or based on the
outcome of the case is against to the professional ethics.
In cases where relief pertaining to monetary aspects is
involved and the result of the case is in terms of money,
then claiming fees based on a percentage of such
monetary relief is not a correct practice of law. Therefore,
in this regard, the Trial Court is correct in not granting the
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43230
RFA No. 132 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010048802026
decree as claimed by the plaintiff for claiming two percent
of professional fees out of the total outcome of the
compensation. To this extent, the Trial Court is correct.
19. Further, in the case of B.Sunita’s case supra,
the Hon’ble Apex Court has highlighted the importance of
legal profession and system of administrative justice and
issued guidelines which are observed at paragraphs 19 to
28 as follows:
“19. However, apart from the present individual
case, the general issue, having been highlighted,
may need further consideration by this Court in the
larger interest of the legal profession and the
system of administration of justice.
20. Undoubtedly, the legal profession is the
major component of the justice delivery system and
has a significant role to play in upholding the rule of
law. Significance of the profession is on account of
its role in providing access to justice and assisting
the citizens in securing their fundamental and other
rights. Can justice be secured with the legal
professionals failing to uphold the professional
ethics? This Court has even earlier expressed the
concern on the falling professional norms in the
legal profession. In Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani
v. Ramchand Issardas Sadarangani v. Ramchand
Issardas Sadarangani, this Court observed that
confidence of the public in the legal profession was
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43230
RFA No. 132 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010048802026
integral to the confidence of the public in the legal
system. Commercialisation to the extent of
exploiting the litigant and misbehaviour to the
extent of browbeating the court, breach of
professional duties to the court and the litigant on
the part of some members of the legal profession,
affecting the right of the litigants to speedy and
inexpensive justice, need to be checked. This has
also been observed earlier in the decisions of this
Court.
21. In its 131st Report dated 31-8-1988, the
Law Commission of India, examined the role of the
legal profession in strengthening the system of
administration of justice. The issue considered
included:
“(i) the state of profession and its public
image;
(ii) profession's attitude towards the policy of
social change intended under the
Constitution;
(iii) the functioning of the Bar Councils and
the question of disciplinary jurisdiction;
(iv) the strike by lawyers, its implications and
fall out;
(v) the question of hobnobbing between the
Bar and politicians, between the Bar and
the Judiciary;
(vi) regulation and standardisation of fees
chargeable by the members of the
profession in relation to the monopolistic
character of the profession.”
22. It was observed that recurring strikes by
the Bar had contributed to the piling up of arrears
jeopardising the consumers of justice and has thus
led to weakening the system of administration of
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43230
RFA No. 132 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010048802026
justice. While considering the mounting cost of
litigation, it was observed that fee charged by some
senior advocates are astronomical in character. The
corporate sector is willing to retain talent at a high
cost. It develops into a culture and it permeates
down below. Role of the legal profession in
strengthening the administration of justice must be
in consonance with the mandate of Article 39-A to
ensure equal opportunity for access to justice. The
legal profession must make its services available to
the needy by developing its public sector. It was
observed that like public hospitals for medical
services, the public sector should have a role in
providing legal services for those who cannot afford
fee [Id, Para 3.30] . Maintenance of irreducible
minimum standards of the profession is a must for
ensuring accountability of the legal profession. The
methodology was required to be devised as a part
of social audit of the profession wherein consumers
of justice were required to be given.
23. Referring to the lawyers' fee as barrier to
access to justice, it was observed that it was the
duty of Parliament to prescribe fee for services
rendered by members of the legal profession. First
step should be taken to prescribe floor and ceiling in
fees.
24. With regard to the role of the legal profession
for strengthening the administration of justice, it
was observed that members of the legal profession
could have a decisive say in law making being
largest group in legislative bodies. They could
contribute to reduce the litigation instead of
perpetuating disputes by counselling the parties and
could contribute to reduce the delay in proceedings.
Alternative modes of resolution of disputes should
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43230
RFA No. 132 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010048802026
be explored and one such may be pre-trial
conciliation proceedings. Reducing the number of
witnesses to be examined by deleting the irrelevant
witnesses reducing the length of cross-examination
by avoiding unnecessary questions and avoiding
adjournments could help the administration of
justice.
25. Though the 131st Report was submitted
in the year 1988, no effective law appears to have
been enacted to regularise the fee or for providing
the public sector services to utmost needy litigants
without any fee or at standardised fee. Mechanism
to deal with violation of professional ethics also does
not appear to have been strengthened. Success of
administration of justice to a great extent depends
on successful regulation of legal profession in the
light of mandate under Article 39-A for access to
justice. Deficiency in the working of the present
regulatory mechanism has been acknowledged by
this Court in several decisions. Mandate for the
Bench and the Bar is to provide speedy and
inexpensive justice to the victim of justice and to
protect their rights. The legal system must continue
to serve the victims of injustice.
26. In view of this mandate, this Court
requested the Law Commission to have a relook at
the regulatory mechanism and expressed the hope
that the Government of India will consider the
recommendation of the Law Commission. In its
266th Report dated 23-3-2017 submitted in the
light of decision of this Court in Mahipal Singh Rana,
it was noted that conduct of members of the legal
profession who do not follow ethics contributes to
the pendency of cases. Element of public service
has to remain predominant. The Commission noted
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43230
RFA No. 132 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010048802026
that there was a huge loss of working days by call
of unjustified strikes in jurisdiction of various High
Courts resulting in denial of justice to the litigant in
public. Such dilatory tactics including seeking
adjournments on unjustified grounds affect the
speedy disposal of cases. The Commission also
noted the instances of browbeating the courts for
getting favourable orders obstructing administration
of justice. The Law Commission also noted the
contemptuous conduct of some members of the
legal profession.
27. The Law Commission thereafter
considered the issue of review of regulatory
framework of the legal profession. Referring to the
developments in other countries it was observed
that there was dire necessity of reviewing
regulatory mechanism not only in the matter of
discipline and misconduct but also in other areas. It
was suggested that constitution of the Bar Council
required a change for which an Amendment Bill was
also recommended.
28. We hope that the authorities concerned in
the Government will take cognizance of the issue of
introducing requisite legislative changes for an
effective regulatory mechanism to check violation of
professional ethics and also to ensure access to
legal services which is major component of access
to justice mandated under Article 39-A of the
Constitution.
29. The appeal stands disposed of
accordingly.”
20. The plaintiff, in order to prove that he has
provided legal professional services to the defendants has
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43230
RFA No. 132 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010048802026
relied upon the documentary evidence at Exs.P-1 to P-20.
The Trial Court appreciated that the plaintiff has appeared
in LAC cases No.147 and 262 of 2019 and considering the
volume of work, such as filing Vakalat, applications, claim
statements, attending Courts and the standard of tabular
formulation, the Trial Court has fixed professional fee at
Rs.5,00,000/-. Considering this documentary evidence
placed by the plaintiff, it is proved that the defendants
availed themselves services of the plaintiff for legal
services and the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the
documentary evidence and held that the defendants had
availed themselves services of the plaintiff/Advocate for
their land acquisition cases.
21. When this being the facts in issue are proved by
the documentary and oral evidence, it cannot be said that
the approach of the Trial Court is perverse. The Trial Court
has determined the professional fees in a lump sum of
Rs.5,00,000/-. The Trial Court has assigned reasons as to
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43230
RFA No. 132 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010048802026
what an Advocate is required to do and the hard work to
be put in while conducting the cases. The Trial Court had
not reasoned the travelling expenses to go to Court;
therefore, considering the overall reasonings given by the
Trial Court, the determination of the professional fees of
Rs.5,00,000/- by the Trial Court, directing the defendants
to pay professional fees to the plaintiff, is found to be
appropriate, reasonable and justifiable.
22. The profession of an Advocate is onerous and is
a highly responsible job. The Advocates are integral part of
administration of justice. The hard work of the Advocate is
to be recognized in a significant way. The Advocate is not
doing any business, but he is rendering services to the
society. The Advocate is an officer of the Court and unless
there is effective assistance by the Advocates, there would
not be effective administration of justice; therefore, the
services of Advocates is pivotal in the society to maintain
law and order. Hence, the contribution of the Advocate is
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43230
RFA No. 132 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010048802026
immense to the society and they are also the saviours in
protecting the law; therefore, when such being the
services of an Advocate in our judicial system, the efforts
are to be recognized and honoured. Hence, what the Trial
Court determined the professional fees is found to be
correct, appropriate, reasonable and justified.
23. When this being the fact, the defendants
without honouring the services of the plaintiff/Advocate,
have compelled the plaintiff to file a suit for claiming his
professional fees; therefore, the plaintiff, being an
Advocate for receiving his professional fees, is dragged to
the court; therefore, the conduct of the defendants is
found to be unfair and deprecated. Hence, the appeal is
found to be devoid of merits. Thus, it is liable to be
dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-. Accordingly, I answer
point Nos.(i) in the Affirmative and point Nos.(ii) to (iv)
in the Negative .
24. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43230
RFA No. 132 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010048802026
ORDER
i. The Regular First Appeal is dismissed
with cost of Rs.25,000/-. Also, the
defendants shall pay cost incurred in
filing the suit to the plaintiff/Advocate.
ii. The judgment and decree dated
23.09.2025 passed in
O.S.No.8412/2023 on the file of XX
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
(CCH-32), Bengaluru City, Bengaluru, is
hereby confirmed.
iii. Draw decree accordingly.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
SRA, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21