2024 (5) TMI 1402 - HC - Indian Laws

Entitlement of the plaintiff to recover the suit amount along with interest - Existence of cause of action for the plaintiff - Clean hands of the plaintiff in approaching the court - Privity of contract between the parties - Suit being bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties - HELD THAT - As noticed by the Courts below, the total claim of the plaintiff against the 1st defendant was Rs.19,75,146.24 ps, from which, Rs.5 lacs was paid through four cheques by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff and a further sum of Rs.5 lacs had been paid for compromise in the Complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff. The balance claim of the plaintiff is Rs.9,75,146.24. No doubt, the plaintiff placed reliance on Ex.PW-1/D, final bill, but the said final bill appears to have been generated after the construction was completed and it was not even signed by the plaintiff or the 1st defendant. So no reliance could have been placed on it by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff's claim is that various items of work done by him for construction of the house of the 1st defendant was agreed to be done at the market rates, he should have adduced evidence about the market rate of each item of work, but he has not chosen to do so. It is settled law that stipulations and terms of the contract have to be certain and the parties must have been consensus ad idem. The acceptance must be absolute and must correspond with the terms of the offer. The burden of showing the stipulations and terms of the contract, and that the minds where ad idem, is on the plaintiff. If the stipulations and terms are uncertain, and the parties are not ad idem, there is no contract at all (Mayawanti vs. Kaushlya Devi) 1990 (4) TMI 304 - SUPREME COURT Since the claim of the plaintiff is with regard to the distinct items of work said to have been executed by him for the 1st defendant, burden was on him to establish the rate of each item of work, for which, there is no evidence adduced by him. Therefore, though I hold that there is privity of contract between the parties, I hold that that the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court were not right in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the unilateral document Ex.PW-1/D, more particularly when the plaintiff had not produced a single original bill, voucher or material to establish the amount of expenditure incurred by the plaintiff towards executing various items of work for constructing the house of the 1st defendant. In my opinion, the judgments of the trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court are perverse and cannot be sustained. Substantial questions of law (1) and (2) are answered in favour of the respondent but substantial questions of law (3) and (4) are answered in favour of the appellants. Accordingly, this Regular Second Appeal is allowed and the judgments of the trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court are set-aside.

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of the plaintiff to recover the suit amount along with interest.
2. Cause of action for the plaintiff.
3. Estoppel against the plaintiff due to his own acts, deeds, and conduct.
4. Clean hands of the plaintiff.
5. Privity of contract between the parties.
6. Non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of the plaintiff to recover the suit amount along with interest:
The trial court held that the plaintiff proved the construction of the house of the defendants and that the defendants failed to make the final payment. The evidence indicated that the plaintiff completed the construction work, and the defendants had paid Rs.10 lacs out of the claimed Rs.19,75,146.24. The lower appellate court confirmed this finding, noting that the defendant had compromised a Section 138 N.I. Act complaint by paying Rs.5 lacs, indicating acknowledgment of the debt. However, the High Court found that the plaintiff did not produce original bills or evidence of market rates for the work done, deeming the reliance on the final bill Ex.PW-1/D insufficient.

2. Cause of action for the plaintiff:
The defendants contended that there was no privity of contract and that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The trial court and the lower appellate court found that an oral agreement existed between the parties, and the construction was done by the plaintiff. The High Court, however, emphasized the lack of documentary evidence to support the specific terms and rates of the contract, impacting the plaintiff's cause of action.

3. Estoppel against the plaintiff due to his own acts, deeds, and conduct:
The trial court did not find the plaintiff estopped from filing the suit based on his conduct. The evidence suggested that the plaintiff carried out the construction work and sought payment as per the agreement. The High Court did not specifically address estoppel but focused on the lack of evidence for the claimed amount.

4. Clean hands of the plaintiff:
The defendants alleged that the plaintiff did not come to court with clean hands. The trial court and the lower appellate court did not find merit in this contention, as the plaintiff's actions were consistent with performing the construction work. The High Court did not find any conduct by the plaintiff that would bar his claim on this ground.

5. Privity of contract between the parties:
The trial court and the lower appellate court found that there was privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants, based on the oral agreement and the payments made. The High Court agreed that there was privity of contract but emphasized that the plaintiff failed to prove the specific terms and rates of the contract, impacting the enforceability of the claimed amount.

6. Non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties:
The trial court dismissed the suit against the 2nd defendant, finding no role in the dispute. The lower appellate court confirmed this finding. The High Court did not address this issue specifically but set aside the judgments based on the lack of evidence for the claimed amount.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the Regular Second Appeal, setting aside the judgments of the trial court and the lower appellate court. The court found that while there was privity of contract, the plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to substantiate the claimed amount. The substantial questions of law (1) and (2) were answered in favor of the respondent, but questions (3) and (4) were answered in favor of the appellants. The suit was dismissed due to the lack of documentary evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim.

← Previous Next →