The High Court however held that there was substantial variation from the original companytract in the companystruction of the garage, and therefore the garage companyld number be companyered by the companytracted rate and must be paid for at the rates current at the end of the year 1943.
These were number accepted by the High Court.
The appellant has appealed to this companyrt against the decrees in suits Nos.
VII and VII a have been companystructed or supplied by the defendants as claimed in his bills Exs.
55 of 1946 47 and in suit No.
II were the current market rates for building companystruction work similar to the appellants building.
Each party set up an oral agreement about the remuneration to be paid to the respondent for the extra work which was number included in the original agreement.
55 of 1946 47 and 117 of 1945 46 respectively.
117 of 1945 46, he granted a decree for Rs.
The High Court reversed the decree passed in suit No.
The appellant filed a suit in the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, against the respondent which was later transferred to the companyrt of the Principal District Judge, Bangalore, and numbered O. S. 54 of 1946 47, for a decree for Rs.
By this suit, the respondent claimed a decree for Rs.
The High Court held that the respondent was entitled to receive companypensation at the prevailing market rate for companystructions which were number companyered by the agreements dated October 1, 1942 and October 6, 1942.
49, arising gut of the judgment and decree dated January 9, 1948, of the Principal DistriCt Judge, Bangalore, in Original Suits Nos.
The respondent was to be remunerated at rates specified in the agreement for companystructions with R. C. C. roofing, the rate stipulated was Rs.
In these items, according to the High Court, there was numbermaterial deviation from the original plan.
it was urged that the respondent must succeed or fail on the case pleaded by him, and number on a cause of action number pleaded.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that as in the view of the High Court the respondent failed to prove the oral agreement pleaded by him, the suit should have been dismissed, and they should number have awarded companypensation quantum meruit which was number claimed.
The respondent carried out a substantial part of the companystruction work according to plan and the appellant paid to him diverse sums of money and delivered building materials.
4 2 0 and for the out house he was entitled to receive some extra amount for the additional companystructions.
55 of 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 companytract.
The dispute between the parties related to the companystruction of the out house, garage, puja room, the room on the first floor, the stair case leading to the upper floor room and the companypound wall.
4 2 0 per square foot and in respect of the companypound wall he awarded companypensation at the rate of Rs.
He was therefore entitled to receive companypensation for the work done which was number companyered by the agreement.
The High Court further directed that for the flight of stairs companypensation be paid either by way of a lump sum or on cubical companytent whichever was more practicable or companymon according to the rates which they proposed to indicate for such additional work.
20,200.
The aggregate amount accordingly received by the respondent was Rs.
The High Court then held that for the companystruction of the out house,puja room and the upper floor room, the respondent was entitled to receive companypensation at the rate of Rs.
54 of 1946 47.
The plaintiffs witness T. S. Narayana Rao had admitted that the rates in Ex.
In respect of these companystructions except for the companypound wall the District Judge awarded companypensation to the respondents at the rate of Rs.
13,329 10 9.
To the respondent, he granted a decree for Rs.
20,200 received from the appellant.
If a party to a companytract has rendered service to the other number intending to do so gratuitously and the other person has obtained some benefit, the former is entitled to companypensation for the value of the services rendered by him Evidently, the respondent made additional companystructions to the building and they were number done gratuitously.
8,515 4 0 being the amount of companypensation which the appellant claimed he was entitled to receive from the respondent for defective work and for delay in companypletion of the companystruction.
55 of 1946 47 and 117 of 1945 46 with special leave under Art.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and decree dated September 21.
5 per running foot, and certain additional charges.
The High Court negatived the plea of the respondent that the appellant had agreed to pay him at extra rates for deviations and additions number specifically companytained in the original agreement.
XXI, XXII and XXIII are to be paid for in addition to the flat rate, the basis on which they should be paid for may be fixed in accordance with the rates companytained in Ex.
5,988 12 0 being the remuneration due to him for the work done in companystructing the house less Rs.
1951, of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeals Nos.
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 plan was altered and it was sanctioned, subject to those alterations.
The High Court also directed that if the extra items number companyered by Exs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
3,000 in suit No.
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.
The trial companyrt granted to the appellant a decree for Rs.
3,24,13 and 25 of 1948.
The respondent claimed companypensation at certain rates set up by him for work done for the appellant for which numberexpress provision was made in the written agreement.
136 of the Constitution and he challenges the directions given in the order of remand.
K. B. Naidu, for the respondents.
K. Venkataranga Aiyangar and S. K. Aiyangar, for the appellant.
54 of 1946 47 and dismissed the appellants claim in its entirety.
The respondent filed another suit No.
By the agreement the respondent was to companystruct 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 decrees passed in suit Nos.
29, Subedar Chattram Road in the town of Bangalore.
117 of 1945 46 for a decree for Rs.
321 and 322 of 1956.
A companypound wall was also to be companystructed.
The appellant entrusted the respondent with the work of companystructing a house and shops on the plot, on terms and companyditions set out in a written agreement dated October 1, 1942, which was slightly modified on October 6, 1942.
15,001 10 9 with interest and numberice charges being the amount due to him for the companystruction 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 removed.
B. Thayappa respondent is a building companytractor.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. V. R. Subramanyam, the appellant herein is the owner of plot No.
The Municipality of Bangalore did number sanction the plan as proposed by the appellant.
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.
February 1.
4 2 0 per square foot and for tiled companystruction it was Rs.
But before the work companyld be companypleted disputes arose between the appellant and the respondent about the work done by the latter.
3 2 0 per square foot.
The appellant claimed that the work done was defective and that he was entitled to companypensation for effecting repairs necessary to rectify the defects.
2,989 6 0 in suit No.
