Advocate Betraying Client’s Trust to Usurp Property is the Worst Abuse of Professional Ethics: Madras High Court

"Lawyers Must Uphold Integrity; Trust Once Betrayed Cannot Be Redeemed," - Madras High Court, in B. Senguttuvan v. S. Karthikeyan, A.S. No. 179 of 2025, delivered a strongly worded judgment condemning an advocate for misusing his client’s trust to fraudulently claim ownership over the client’s property. Justice S.S. Sundar upheld the Trial Court’s decree cancelling the sale agreement fraudulently obtained by the advocate, awarding ₹10 lakh in damages to the plaintiff, and dismissed the appeal stating that such conduct from a member of the Bar "shakes the foundation of justice itself."
The tragic backdrop saw the plaintiff, S. Karthikeyan, orphaned following the death of his parents and sister. At a young age, deprived of guidance and protection, he fell into the hands of relatives who exploited him. Seeking legal assistance, he was introduced to the defendant, advocate B. Senguttuvan.
The plaintiff trusted Senguttuvan to help safeguard his rights. Instead, Senguttuvan allegedly made the plaintiff sign blank and stamp papers under the guise of preparing a rental agreement. Later, the advocate fraudulently used those papers to register an agreement of sale dated 24.11.2016, clandestinely claiming ownership of the plaintiff's ancestral house.
The betrayal came to light when Senguttuvan attempted to demolish a portion of the building, leading the plaintiff to lodge a police complaint and file a civil suit for cancellation of the fraudulent sale agreement and for damages.
The High Court framed the main issues as whether the agreement of sale was valid, whether the plaintiff’s consent was obtained through deceit, and whether the advocate had exploited his fiduciary relationship.
Justice S.S. Sundar observed emphatically that: "An advocate is not merely an agent of the client but a fiduciary and trustee. Taking advantage of a distressed client is not only unethical but borders on criminal betrayal of faith."
The Court noted that Senguttuvan, while claiming ownership, simultaneously issued public notices as if still acting for the plaintiff — a glaring contradiction that revealed his intent to deceive.
The Court underscored: "It is beyond pale that a practicing advocate, who was approached for protection, took advantage of the client's helplessness and converted his position into a weapon of deceit."
The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that the plaintiff and his aunt had trusted Senguttuvan blindly, leading to misuse of documents and breach of trust.

Affirming the Trial Court’s finding, the High Court ruled: "When the advocate chose not to enter the witness box despite serious allegations, adverse inference must be drawn against him."
The Court upheld the award of ₹10 lakh damages for the illegal demolition and distress caused to the plaintiff, stressing that:
"A person who comes to equity must come with clean hands. An advocate found with soiled hands deserves no indulgence from a court of law."
The appeal was dismissed with strong condemnation of the advocate’s conduct, with the Court warning that such betrayals tarnish the image of the legal fraternity.
This judgment stands as a resounding affirmation that the bond between a lawyer and client is sacred, built on the bedrock of trust and honesty. The Madras High Court sent an unambiguous message that when advocates breach this trust, the courts will act swiftly and firmly to protect litigants and preserve the integrity of the legal profession.

Date of Decision: 25 April 2025