SATHYA ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS MADURAI Vs. S NACHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant. The plaintiff was carrying on contract business in the matter of construction of houses. The first defendant is the wife and second defendant is the husband. The first defendant was the owner of the premises bearing Door No. 184, North Veli Street , Madurai in T. S. No. 752/1, and the second defendant was the owner of premises bearing door No. 12, Goods Shed Street , Madurai.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that on 11. 10. 1975 the plaintiff agreed to do contract work of constructing a ground floor in Door no. 184, North Veli Street, Madurai in T. S. No. 732/1 and an agreement Ex. A-1 was entered into containing the terms and conditions thereof. THE plaintiff commenced and completed the work of constructing the ground floor on 22. 2. 1976, then a second agreement Ex. A-7 was entered into on 18. 5. 1976 for construction of first and second floors in the same premises. During the subsistence of the second agreement an oral agreement was also entered into between the plaintiff and the second defendant for doing some repair work in Door No. 12, Goods Shed Street , Madurai . THE work of second agreement in respect of Door No. 184, and the work of oral agreement in respect of Door No. 12 were also completed, During the work the defendants have paid some amounts to the plaintiff. After the work was completed the plaintiff gave a final Bill ex. A. 8 on 20. 9. 1976 claiming No. 31314. 46. But the amount was not paid and therefore the plaintiff sent a notice Ex. A-11 dated 5. 12. 1976. For that the defendants sent a reply Ex. A-12 dated 22. 12. 1976 raising untenable contentions. THE plaintiff then sent a rejoinder notice Ex. A-3 on 2. 1. 1977, but it was of no avail. THErefore the plaintiff has filed the suit.

(3.) ON careful consideration of the evidence on this point i am inclined to agree with the finding of the trial court. It is not in dispute that Kannappa Chettiar was working under the plaintiff. The defendants have examined Kannappa Chettiar as D. W. 2 and he has testified that he received the amounts mentioned in Exs. B-26 to B-39 from the defendants and he paid them to the plaintiff. Therefore it is true that Exs B-26 to B-"9 receipts were issued by Kannappa Chettiar. The Question arises whether Kannappa Chettiar paid the amounts to the plaintiff. The plaintiff (P. W. I) has stated that to fetch money from the parties he used to send Kannappa Chettiar. He has also stated that Kannappa would pay such amounts received by him to him (plaintiff ). The further evidence of the plaintiff is that he has not asked Kannappa anything about the defendants claim that they have paid the amounts to Kannappa. This is unlikely if really he had not received the amounts from Kanappa.