Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1402 - HC - Indian LawsIssues Involved: 1. Entitlement of the plaintiff to recover the suit amount along with interest. 2. Existence of cause of action for the plaintiff. 3. Estoppel of the plaintiff from filing the suit due to his own acts. 4. Clean hands of the plaintiff in approaching the court. 5. Privity of contract between the parties. 6. Suit being bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. Summary: Issue 1: Entitlement to Recover the Suit Amount The trial Court decreed the suit against the 1st defendant, holding that the evidence proved the construction of the house by the plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court confirmed this, noting the payments made by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff, including a settlement in a Complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. However, the High Court found that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of market rates for each item of work, deeming the judgments of the lower courts perverse. Issue 2: Cause of Action The trial Court and the lower Appellate Court found that there was an oral contract between the parties, thus establishing a cause of action for the plaintiff. The High Court upheld this finding, noting the concurrent findings of both lower courts. Issue 3: Estoppel The defendants contended that the plaintiff was estopped from filing the suit due to his own acts. The trial Court and the lower Appellate Court did not find merit in this argument, and the High Court did not specifically address this issue, implying agreement with the lower courts. Issue 4: Clean Hands The defendants argued that the plaintiff did not come to the court with clean hands. Both the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court rejected this contention, and the High Court did not find any reason to interfere with this finding. Issue 5: Privity of Contract The trial Court and the lower Appellate Court found privity of contract between the parties, despite the absence of a written agreement. The High Court agreed with this finding but noted the plaintiff's failure to prove the rates for each item of work. Issue 6: Non-joinder and Mis-joinder of Parties The trial Court dismissed the suit against the 2nd defendant, finding no role for her in the dispute. The lower Appellate Court confirmed this, and the High Court did not find any reason to interfere. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the Regular Second Appeal, setting aside the judgments of the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court. The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to support his claim for the amount spent on construction, thus answering substantial questions of law (3) and (4) in favor of the appellants.
|