RAJU BHASKASRAN Vs. PROPRIETOR MS HABITAT TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S.No.60/2002 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Devikulam is the appellant. Respondents are the defendants. The suit was instituted for declaration of title and for a mandatory injunction contending that he is a contractor for building construction and plaint A schedule items belong to the appellant and plaint B schedule items belong to the third respondent. Plaint B schedule items were obtained by the appellant from the third respondent on rental basis. First respondent obtained the architectural designing and supervision of the building construction of the proposed Engineering College at Munnar. The structural work was done by the first respondent and the building, as decided, is to be constructed near Munnar. Quotations were invited and appellant submitted a quotation and after several discussions, second respondent undertook the entire concrete work of the building ensuring that 23,000 sq.ft. will be allotted to the appellant and accounts will be submitted by the end of every week. As per the terms and conditions, during September 2001 appellant started earth work of the proposed building and in October 2001, he brought plaint A schedule items to the work site. Some of the plaint schedule items were brought from EVM's Best Wood Hotel site. On 15.5.2000, appellant purchased Item No.1 from Pachalan Kochin, though, earlier, he has been in possession of the same. He obtained plaint B schedule items on rental basis from third respondent. Difference of opinion arose for Rs.65,000/- retained by the second respondent from the account of the appellant. During middle of February 2002, an area of 4,500 sq.ft. was completed by the appellant and he sent a notice to the second respondent to settle the account. But, it was not done. When appellant tried to remove plaint A and B schedule materials, it was objected to by respondents 1 and 2. They have no right over the same and therefore, appellant is entitled to a decree declaring his title to plaint A schedule items and for taking those articles.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 resisted the suit contending that no civil work was entrusted to the appellant. He is only a labour contractor and plaint A and B schedule items do not belong to the appellant or third respondent and they belong to respondents 1 and 2 and appellant is not entitled to the decree sought for.

(3.) THOUGH learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that courts below did not appreciate the evidence in the proper perspective and should have found that appellant had undertaken the civil work and brought plaint A and B schedule items to the work site and appellant and third respondent have respective title to plaint A and B schedule items, on going through the judgments of the courts below, it is clear that even the identity of plaint A and B schedule items was not established. THOUGH Commissioner noted that plaint A and B schedule items were there in the site, as rightly found by the courts below, apart from plaint A and B schedule articles, similar articles were available in the work site, which admittedly belong to respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, there is nothing to hold that the articles noted by the Commissioner either belong to the appellant or third respondent. In such circumstances, courts below were justified in finding that appellant did not establish the title claimed in the suit. Moreover, though it is contended by the appellant that he is a civil contractor, Exhibit A7 notice issued by the appellant himself establishes that he was only a labour contractor. In such circumstances, I find no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed.