KRISHNA MENON Vs. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

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 lower court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to get any further amount for the work in the Ernakulam temple and as regards the work done in the Chittur temple the plaintiff was not entitled to recover any amount under the contract as he did not perform an essential term in the contract. That court also found that there was no acceptance of the work as one by the plaintiff and therefore there was no obligation on the part of the defendant to pay any amount by way of quantum meruit. The lower court discussed the question whether the plaintiff was entitled to get any remedy under S.64 of the Contract Act but found that he was not entitled both substantially and also because the notice issued to the defendant under S.124(1) of the Hindu Religious Institution Act did not make any claim under S.64 of the Contract Act. For these reasons that court dismissed the suit except in respect of Rs. 126 for the extra work done by the plaintiff and not covered by the agreement.