Case: V. R. Sejbramanyam Vs. B. Thayappa And Others

1. V.R. Subramanayam, the appellant herein is the owner of plot No. 29, Subedar Chattram Road in the town of Bangalore. B. Thayappa respondent is a building contractor. The appellant entrusted the respondent with the work of constructing a house and shops on the plot, on terms and conditions set out in a written agreement dated October 1, 1942, which was slightly modified on October 6, 1942. By the agreement the respondent was to construct for the appellant on the plot six shops abutting a public road, the main building at the rear of the shops, an out-house and a garage according to a site plan. The respondent was to be remunerated at rates specified in the agreement: for constructions with R. C. C. roofing, the rate stipulated was Rs. 4-2-0 per square foot and for "tiled construction it was Rs. 3-2-0 per square foot. The Municipality of Bangalore did not sanction the plan as proposed by the appellant. the plan was altered and it was sanctioned, subject to those alterations. By the alterations the shops were deleted from the plan, the area of the out-house was increased, and a puja room on the ground floor and an extra room on the first floor were added to the plan. A compound wall was also to be constructed. The respondent carried out a substantial part of the construction work according to plan and the appellant paid to him diverse sums of money and delivered building materials. The aggregate amount accordingly received by the respondent was Rs. 20,200. But before the work could be completed disputes arose between the appellant and the respondent about the work done by the latter. The appellant claimed that the work done was defective and that he was entitled to compensation for effecting repairs necessary to rectify the defects. The respondent claimed compensation at certain rates set up by him for work done for the appellant for which no express provision was made in the written agreement. Each party set up an oral agreement about the remuneration to be paid to the respondent for the extra work which was not included in the original agreement2. The appellant filed a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, against the respondent which was later transferred to the court of the Principal District Judge, Bangalore and numbered O. S. 54 of 1946-47, for a decree for Rs. 8,515-4-0 being the amount of compensation which the appellant claimed he was entitled to receive from the respondent for defective work and for delay in completion of the construction. The respondent filed a suit against the appellant which was later transferred to the court of the Principal District Judge. Bangalore and numbered 55 of 1946-47. By this suit, the respondent claimed a decree for Rs. 5,988-12-0 being the remuneration due to him for the work done in constructing the house less Rs. 20,200 received from the appellant. The respondent filed another suit No. 117 of 1945-46 for a decree for Rs. 15,001-10-9 with interest and notice charges being the amount due to him for the construction of the out-house, godown, first floor room and flight of steps and the value of some building materials which the respondent claimed he had left in the premises of the appellant and which the latter had wrongfully removed3. The trial Court granted to the appellant a decree for Rs. 3,000 in suit No 54 of 1946-47. To the respondent. he granted a decree for Rs. 2,989-6-0 in suit No. 55 of 1946-47 and in suit No. 117 of 1945-46, he granted a decree for Rs. 13,329-10-9. Both the parties felt themselves aggrieved by the decrees passed in the three suits and six appeals were preferred to the High Court of Judicature of Mysore at Bangalore against those decrees. The High Court reversed the decree passed at Suit No. 54 of 1946-47 and dismissed the appellants claim in its entirety. The decrees passed in suits Nos. 55 and 1946-47 and 117 of 1945-46 were also set aside and proceedings were remanded to the District Court with a direction that a qualified engineer be appointed as Commissioner to determine the amounts payable to the respondent for work done in addition to the work agreed to be done under the written contract. The High Court ordered that the same be determined "in accordance with the directions given in the judgment. The appellant has appealed to this court against the decrees in suits Nos. 55 of 1946-47 and 117 of 1945-46 with special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution and he challenges the directions given in the order of remand.

Reasoning: In our view, there is no substance in this contention. As we have already observed, in respect of the additional work done by the respondent, both the parties set up conflicting oral agreements. These were not accepted by the High Court. If a party to a contract has rendered service to the other not intending to do so gratuitously and the other person has obtained some benefit, the former is entitled to compensation for the value of the services rendered by him. Evidently, the respondent made additional constructions to the building and they were not done gratuitously. He was therefore entitled to receive compensation for the work done which was not covered by the agreement. The respondent claimed under an oral agreement compensation at prevailing market rates for work done by him: even if he failed to prove an express agreement in that behalf, the court may still award him compensation under S. 70 of the Contract Act.By awarding a decree for compensation under the Statute and not under the oral contract pleaded, there was in the circumstances of this case no substantial departure from the claim made by the respondentIn the view of the High Court, the rates set out in that bill were not excessive. If with a view to restrict the scope of the enquiry, the learned Judges of the High Court gave a direction to the Commissioner for assessing compensation on the basis of rates which were approved by the plaintiffs witness, it cannot be said that any serious error was committed in incorporating that direction which would justify our interferenceThat suit was dismissed by the High Court and it is not open to the appellant thereafter to seek to reagitate the same question in the companion suits when no appeal has been preferred against the decree in suit No. 54 of 1946-47, and no plea of equitable set off has been raised in the written statements in the companion suits8. In our view, there is no substance in any of the contentions raised.