Judgment N.K.Mody, J. ( 1. ) Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12/03/ 88 passed by Additional District Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora) in Civil Appeal No. 12- A/81 whereby the judgment and decree dated 31/03/78 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Khilchipur in Civil Suit No.71-A/75 whereby the suit filed by deceased Raghunath Gupta predecessor in title of respondents was dismissed, was set aside and a decree was passed against the appellants, the present appeal has been filed. ( 2. ) The appeal was admitted for final hearing by this Court vide order dated 27/06/88 on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, an advocate purchasing the suit property during the pendency of appeal against the order passed under Sections 250 and 190 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, is illegal and invalid? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sale-deed dated 23/08/1967, which was executed during the pendency of proceedings regarding the suit land is void under the provisions of Section 23 of the Contract Act? 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the alleged sale deed is illegal as it is against the provisions of Rule 13 of Chapter 3 Part 4-A of the High Court Rules and Orders and, therefore, illegal? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the lower Appellate Court is perverse against the facts on record and principles of law? ( 3. ) Short facts of the case are that the deceased Raghunath Gupta predecessor in title of respondents filed a suit for possession against Bapulal, Hiralal and Banshilal (all sons of Shankar) who are the predecessor in title of appellants on 25/10/72 for possession. In the suit filed by deceased Raghunath Gupta it was alleged that the land bearing survey No.999/1 measuring 0.60 hectare situated at village Jirapur Tehsil Khilchipur is owned by him as he purchased the suit property from Fatehsingh Thakur vide registered sale deed dated 23/09/67. It was alleged that Fatehsingh was the Bhumi-swami of the suit land. Further case of deceased Raghunath Gupta was that Shankar predecessor in title of the appellants initiated proceedings before the Revenue Court and claimed for mutation alleging themselves to be Shikmi of Fatehsingh. It was alleged that Fatehsingh was the Bhumi-swami of the suit land. Further case of deceased Raghunath Gupta was that Shankar predecessor in title of the appellants initiated proceedings before the Revenue Court and claimed for mutation alleging themselves to be Shikmi of Fatehsingh. It was alleged that the said application was dismissed by SDO vide order dated 06/12/69 and the appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed. It was alleged that Shankar who initiated the proceedings died in the year 1975. It was alleged that Bapulal Hiralal and Banshilal who are legal representatives of deceased Shankar had no right to retain the possession over the suit property. It was alleged that after acquiring the rights over the suit property by sale deed dated 23/09/67 deceased. Raghunath Gupta issued notices on 29/01/74 and asked for possession, but the notice was not replied, hence the suit was filed wherein it was prayed that it be directed that possession be handed over to the deceased Raghunath Gupta and mesne profit be awarded @ Rs.400/- per year. ( 4. ) The suit was contested by predecessor in title of appellants wherein it was denied that the suit property has been purchased by Raghunath Gupta vide sale deed dated 23/09/67. It was alleged that the sale deed has been got executed by- deceased Raghunath Gupta with an oblique motive. It was alleged that Raghunath Gupta is an Advocate and the act of deceased Raghunath Gupta to get the sale deed executed is illegal and immoral, as the deceased Raghunath Gupta was counsel of Fatehsingh. In the written statement it was alleged that Fatehsingh in his life time filed the suit against the predecessor in title of appellants for possession, in which he could not succeed. It was alleged that in the suit property no rights were left over to Fatehsingh, therefore, if any transaction is taken place, then it is of no effect. It was alleged that the suit property was leased out by previous owners Vijaysingh S/o Gangadhar and Gyarsibai W/o Devisingh to Shankar predecessor in title of appellants for a period of 99 years vide lease agreement dated 26/05/55 for a consideration of Rs. 140/-. It was alleged that out of the consideration a sum of Rs.100/- was paid by predecessor in title of appellants and for the balance amount documentation took place. 140/-. It was alleged that out of the consideration a sum of Rs.100/- was paid by predecessor in title of appellants and for the balance amount documentation took place. It was alleged that after execution of lease Fatehsingh filed a suit before Revenue Court on 01/10/63 under Section 250 of MP. Land Revenue Code, which was dismissed on 08/09/64 and First Appeal was also dismissed by SDO vide order dated 31/08/65. It was further alleged that Second Appeal field by Fatehsingh was also dismissed by Additional Revenue Commissioner, Bhopal vide order dated 30/03/66, thus, Fatehsingh could not succeed in taking the possession. It was alleged that thereafter Shankar predecessor in title of appellants moved an application for mutation in the Court of Nayab Tahsildar, Jirapur which was allowed vide order dated 24/06/69, against which an appeal was filed by Fatehsingh in the Court of SDO which was allowed vide judgment dated 06/12/69 on the ground that the relief which has been claimed by the predecessor in title of the appellants can not be granted as the application has been filed in a wrong section. It was further observed in the said order that the application ought to have been filed under Section 190 of M.P. Land Revenue Code. Being aggrieved by the order dated 06/12/69 passed by SDO an appeal was filed by predecessor in title of the appellants before Revenue Commissioner, Bhopal which is still pendingh. It was alleged that since the matter is pending before Revenue Court, therefore, suit itself is not maintainable. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. ( 5. ) On the basis of pleadings of parties, learned trial Court framed the issues, recorded the evidence and dismissed the suit filed by deceased Raghunath Gupta, against which an appeal was filed by deceased Raghunath Gupta. During pendency of appeal Bapulal, Hiralal and Banshilal sons of Shankar died and their legal representatives were brought on record. Vide judgment dated 12/03/88 the appeal filed by deceased Raghunath Gupta was allowed whereby judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court was set aside and decree was passed in favour of deceased Raghunath Gupta, against which present appeal has been filed. ( 6. ) Mr. Brijesh Pandya, learned counsel for appellants argued at length and submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. ( 6. ) Mr. Brijesh Pandya, learned counsel for appellants argued at length and submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the sale deed was got executed by deceased Raghunath Gupta who was an Advocate by profession and was conducting various cases on behalf of Fatehsingh relating to the suit land. It is submitted that thus the sale transaction which took place between deceased Raghunath Gupta and Fatehsingh was hit by the provisions of High Court Rules and also was in violation of Section 23 of Indian Contract Act. It is submitted that learned Appellate Court committed error in holding that the transaction took place between deceased Raghunath Gupta and Fatehsingh was after completion of litigation. It is submitted that at the relevant time appeals were pending and the appeal is in continuation of litigation. It is submitted that the appeal in which deceased Raghunath Gupta was appearing on behalf of Fatehsingh were pending up to 1976. It is submitted that the transaction which took place is between Fatehsingh and deceased Raghunath Gupta was in violation of Section 23 of Indian Contract Act, 1972, as it was forbidden by law. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Nihal Singh Vs. Ram Bai, 1987 JLJ 44 wherein this Court has held that in a case where the contract was void ab-initio as it was in violation of Article 13(2) of Constitution of India, therefore, was unenforceable. It was further observed that sale of a woman is prohibited and suit is not maintainable for refund of consideration paid for her purchase. Learned counsel further placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Mr. G a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, AIR 1954 SC 577 wherein the agreement by an Advocate was to share the result of litigation, Honble Apex Court observed that an Advocate of Supreme Court is bound to conduct himself in a manner befitting the high honourable profession to whose privileges he has so long been admitted, and if he departs from the high standards which that profession has set for itself and demands of him in professional matters, is liable to disciplinary action. ( 7. ( 7. ) Learned counsel for appellants further submit that since the transaction itself was void, therefore, learned Appellate Court committed error in setting aside the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and decreeing the suit filed by deceased Raghunath Gupta. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants be allowed. ( 8. ) Mr. AS. Kutumble, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submit that no illegality has been committed by the learned Appellate Court in passing the judgment and decree in favour of respondents. It is submitted that undisputedly Fatehsingh was the owner of the suit property who has sold the suit property to the deceased Raghunath Gupta. It is submitted that even if it is assumed that deceased Raghunath Gupta was an advocate and has purchased the suit property during pendency of litigation, then too, no objection can be raised by the appellants. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Appellate Court after due appreciation of evidence on record has found that on the date of purchase of the suit property no litigation was pending, therefore, no professional misconduct has been committed by the deceased Raghunath Gupta. It is submitted that it is true that in the order dated 26/04/69 passed by Tehsildar there is an averment that the suit property was purchased by deceased Raghunath Gupta during pendency of litigation, but this order was set aside vide order dated 06/12/69 which is on record as Ex.P/5. It is submitted that in view of this no illegality has been committed by the learned Appellate Court in holding that no litigation was pending when the suit property was purchased by deceased Raghunath Gupta. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed by the appellants has no force and deserves to be dismissed. ( 9. ) From perusal of the record it is evident that undisputedly Fatehsingh was Bhumi-swami of the suit property. Some important dates which are relevant for just disposal of appeal are as under: i. 14/05/63 Application filed by Shankar predecessor in title ofthe appellants under Section 190 of M.R Land Revenue Code was dismissed. ii. 08/09/64Application filed by deceased Fatehsingh predecessor in title of respondents under Section 250 as dismissed. iii. 31/08/65 First Appeal filed by deceased Fatehsingh against the order dated 08/09/64 was dismissed by SDO, Rajgarh. iv. ii. 08/09/64Application filed by deceased Fatehsingh predecessor in title of respondents under Section 250 as dismissed. iii. 31/08/65 First Appeal filed by deceased Fatehsingh against the order dated 08/09/64 was dismissed by SDO, Rajgarh. iv. 30/03/66 Second Appeal filed by deceased Fatehsingh against the order dated 31/08/65 passed by SDO, Rajgarh was dismissed by Revenue Commissioner Bhopal. v. 23/09/67 Sale deed was executed by deceased Fatehsingh in favour of deceased Raghunath Gupta, advocate who is predecessor in title of respondents. vi. 26/04/69 Application filed by Shankar predecessor in title of appellants for recording the name as Sikmi was allowed by Nayab Tehsildar. vii. 06/12/69 Appeal filed by deceased Fatehsingh and deceased Raghunath Gupta against the order dated 26/ 04/69 was allowed by SDO, Rajgarh and the order dated 26/04/69 was set aside. viii. 07/08/72 Appeal filed by Shankar against the order dated 06/12/69 passed by SDO, Rajgarh was dismissed in default. ix. 28/05/75 Shankar died. x. 27/10/76 Restoration application for restoring the appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 07/08/72 was dismissed. ( 10. ) There are some important facts which were not taken into consideration by the learned Appellate Court while decreeing the suit which are as under :- i. Ex.P/1 is the sale deed dated 23/09/67 whereby the suit property was purchased by deceased Raghunath Gupta, advocate from deceased Fatehsingh, wherein there is a recital that the suit property has been purchased for a consideration of Rs. 125/-. It is also mentioned in the sale deed that the sale consideration was paid by purchaser prior to the execution of the sale deed and no consideration was paid in presence of Sub-Registrar when the document was executed. ii. In para-11 of the statement of deceased Raghunath Gupta he has stated that he does not remember that from where he has paid a sum of Rs.125/-. He has further stated that he does not remember whether the amount was paid at Khilchipur or Jirapur. He does not remember whether the amount was paid in presence of witness or not. In para-8 of his statement deceased Raghunath Gupta has further stated that he does not remember whether the litigation was pending between deceased Fatehsingh and the appellants or not. He has further stated that after going through the document Ex.D/1 also he can not say that the appeal. In para-8 of his statement deceased Raghunath Gupta has further stated that he does not remember whether the litigation was pending between deceased Fatehsingh and the appellants or not. He has further stated that after going through the document Ex.D/1 also he can not say that the appeal. Ex.D/1 was relating to the suit property or not, however later on he has improved his statement and has stated that appeal Ex.D/1 is relating to the suit property. in. It is true that the order dated 26/04/69 Ex.D/5 passed by Nayab Tehsildar was set aside vide order dated 06/12/ 69 passed by SDO, Rajgarh (Ex.P/5), but the observations which were made by the Nayab Tehsildar to the effect that iv. It is true that the learned Appellate Court has observed that on the date of sale i.e. 23/09/67 there is nothing on record that any litigation was pending, however enough evidence is on record that the dispute between Shankar predecessor in title of appellants and deceased Fatehsingh was going on right from prior to 1963 and which continued up to 1976. v. There is nothing on record to show that when the application was filed by Shankar to record his name as Shikmi, which was allowed vide order dated 26/04/69. ( 11. ) At the relevant time All India Bar Council (First Constitution) Rules, 1961 was in force. Rule 13 of the said Rules reads as under:- Acquiring interest in litigation :- (a) No Advocate shall acquire in any manner whatever any interest in the subject-matter of the litigation which he is conducing. (b) An Advocate shall either directly or indirectly bid for or purchase either in his own name or in any other name for his own benefit or for the benefit of any other, any property sold in the execution of a decree or order in any suit appeal or other proceeding, in which he was in any way professionally engaged. This prohibition does not prevent an Advocate from bidding for or purchasing for his client any property which his client may himself legally bid for or purchase provided the Advocate is expressly authorised in writing in this behalf. ( 12. This prohibition does not prevent an Advocate from bidding for or purchasing for his client any property which his client may himself legally bid for or purchase provided the Advocate is expressly authorised in writing in this behalf. ( 12. ) Section 109 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under: - Burden of proof as to relationship in the cases of partners, landlord and tenant, principal and agent- When the question is whether persons are partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent, and it has been shown that they have been acting as such, the burden to proving that they do not stand, or have ceased to stand, to each other in those relationship respectively, is on the person who affirms it. ( 13. ) In the matter of Hira Wazir Vs. M. Mohammad Ali Naqi, AIR 1935 Lahore 49 Lahore High Court had an occasion to take into consideration Section 109 of evidence Act and it was observed that where the relationship of principal and agent is admitted, the burden of proving that they had ceased to stand to each other in this relationship is clearly on the person who affirms it. ( 14. ) Keeping in view the litigation of which the details are mentioned herein above, which shows that the dispute was going on between the parties right from 1963 and continued up to 1976 and also keeping in view the observation made by Nayab Tehsildar in the order Ex.D/5 the findings of the learned Appellate Court that no litigation was pending on the date when the sale deed was executed appears not to be correct. ( 15. ) In the present case while holding that no litigation was pending on the date of execution of sale deed i.e. 23/09/67 in para-8 of its judgment learned Appellate Court has further held that appellants have failed to prove by adducing sufficient evidence that the litigation was pending in which deceased Raghunath Gupta was Advocate on behalf of Fatehsingh, while in view of the pendency of the litigation of which the details are mentioned herein above and keeping in view the provisions of Section 109 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the burden was on the respondents to prove that no litigation was pending on the date when the sale deed took place. ( 16. ( 16. ) In view of the aforesaid position of law and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the suit property was purchased by deceased Raghunath Gupta vide sale deed dated 23/09/67, while the litigation was pending between deceased Shankar and Fatehsingh from, whom the suit property was purchased by deceased Raghunath Gupta and he was the advocate in the said litigation appearing on behalf of Fatehsingh, which is in violation of Rule 13 of All India Bar Council (First Constitution) Rules, 1961. Since the sale deed dated 23/ 09/67 was forbidden by law, therefore, the said transaction was unlawful and was void. ( 17. ) In view of this, appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 12/03/88 passed by Additional District Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora) is set aside and the judgment dated 31/03/78 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Khilchipur in Civil Suit No.71-A/75 is restored. ( 18. ) With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. C.C. as per rules. Appeal allowed.