LALRINAWMA SAILO Vs. VANLALZAWNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2010 passed by Civil Judge Senior, Aizawl in Civil Suit No. 22/2008 decreeing the suit for realization of 50% of Rs. 52,83,119/ - after deduction of expenditures incurred by the parties for construction of Mizoram University Boundary Wall Phase - 1.

(2.) RESPONDENT Sh. Vanlalzawna as plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 22/2008 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior, Aizawl stating that the defendant Sh. Lalrinawma Sailo being husband of his first cousin entered into an agreement with him on 25.10.2006 whereby it was agreed upon between the parties that the contract work for construction of Boundary Wall of Mizoram University Phase -1 of Mizoram University allotted to the said defendant on 18.10.2006 would be performed by both of them. By the said agreement, it was undertaken, inter alia, that both of them would share expenditure incurred in the work equally, that they would borrow Rs. 30 lakh from Bank in the name of the defendant No. 1 and they would also pay off the personal loan of Rs. 9, 20,000/ - already borrowed by them. It was also undertaken that the remaining money would be shared equally between two of them. According to the said agreement, an account book should have been maintained by both of them and checked and verified by them as well as by other persons whenever required. Finally, by paragraph 8 of the agreement, it was decided that profit derived from the work would be shared equally by them. The plaintiff further stated that he brought one Sahab Uddin for supply of labour force to do the job at the rate of Rs. 400/ - per sq. metre and plaintiff remained present at site all throughout when work was done. According to the plaintiff, the loan incurred by them was repayed from the 1st and 2nd bills but the defendant No. 1 took away the money derived from 3rd, 4th and 5th bills without giving any share to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff claim sum of Rs. 27,62,920/ - on the basis of the aforesaid agreement dated 25.10.2006.

(3.) APPEARING in the case, the defendant No. 1 submitted written statement and contested the suit claiming, inter alia, that the so called agreement dated 25.10.2006 was neither valid nor acted upon. According to the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff did not make any payment at all towards expenditure incurred in performing the contract and as such plaintiff was not entitled to claim any amount. In regard to agreement dated 30.10.2006 executed by the plaintiff in favour of one Sahab Uddin authorizing the letter to perform the contract at the rate of Rs. 400/ - per square metre was in no way binding on the defendant No. 1 as because he was neither a party to the agreement nor was he in the agreement. According to him, he got the contract performed at his own money. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as two issues: -