LAWS(KER)-1962-12-20

KRISHNA MENON Vs. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

Decided On December 04, 1962
KRISHNA MENON Appellant
V/S
COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. THE suit was to recover money under two heads, Rs. 97 and interest due for the repairs to electric installation in the temple at Ernakulam and Rs. 2,510-8-0 for the complete electric installation of Sree Krishna Swami Temple at Chittur. THE defendant is the Cochin Devaswom Board. THE plaintiff's case was that he contracted with the defendant for executing the work of installing electric light in the Sree Krishna Swami Temple according to the specification given by the defendant. Ext. D-2 dated 12th March 1953 is the tender made by the plaintiff. THE tender was accepted by the defendant under Ext. P-3 and the acceptance was on the definite understanding that the work must be completed by 10th Medam 1128. In pursuance to that, Ext. D-3 agreement was executed by the plaintiff on 19th March 1953. Ext. D-3 (a) is the order of the Board accepting the agreement. THE work was completed by the plaintiff and he got a formal receipt of acceptance of work under Ext. P-6 on 12th Medam 1128. THEreafter the plaintiff sent three bills, exts. P 7, P-8 and P-8 (a) for Rs. 2,545-8-0. as the bills were not honoured, the plaintiff instituted the suit after issuing the notice under S. 124 (1) of the Hindu Religious Institution Act, 1950. THEreafter the defendant cancelled the contract by Ext. D-14 on 14th February 1954. That was after the suit was instituted, but before the service of summons. Even before the suit, Ext. P-9 communication was sent by the Commissioner of Devaswoms on 14th May 1953 directing the plaintiff to rectify certain defects in the installation. Plaintiff replied to that on 23rd May 1953. In the suit a commission was taken out to ascertain the nature and the extent of the work done by the plaintiff. Ext. P-16 is the report of the commissioner. THE material defect noted by the commissioner in his report was that whereas according to the contract between the parties, up to the circuit line 3/20 wire had to be used, the plaintiff had used only 1/18 wire. According to the report, this would make a difference of rs. 2 per point in the matter of cost. If the contract had been carried out in accordance with the strict specification, Rs. 163 would have been the additional cost which the plaintiff would have had to incur. THE commissioner also reported that the strength and durability of the wire will be less in the case of 118 wires than in the case of 320 wires.

(2.) THE main defence in the suit was that the plaintiff has been paid in full for the work done in the Ernakulam temple, but that the work done in the Chittur temple was not in accordance with the specifications, and in spite of repeated requisitions to the plaintiff to conform to the specification he did not perform the contract according to the terms thereof, whereupon the contract was cancelled, and that there was no liability to pay any amount either under contract or for the value of the work done.

(3.) THE contentions raised by appellant before me were: (1) THEre was substantial performance by the plaintiff of the contract, (2)THEre was an acceptance by the defendant of the work done by the plaintiff and even if the contract was not performed substantially he is entitled to recover remuneration for the work which he had actually done and the benefit of which was enjoyed by the defendant.