NAGENDRA NATH SINGHA Vs. SRIMATI NAGENDRA BALA CHOWDHURANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The set two appeals maybe dealt with, together, for they are both directed against the same judgment. In a suit for damages, a decree has been made directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 7,071-5-0 with the result that defendant has preferred an appeal (No. 170) in which he asks us to hold that he is not liable at all, or, in any event, that the sum should be assessed at a much lower figure, while the plaintiff has preferred an appeal (No. 245) claiming a larger amount.

(2.) The circumstances are as follows: The plaintiff, a lady, the wife of Baroda Prosad Rai Choudhuri, erected a large pucca building at No. 52 Beni Nandan Street, Bhowanipur, in 1915- 1916. The plan of the building was prepared by a firm styled Sinha and Sarkar, of which the defendant Nagendra Nath Sinha is the working partner. In July 1915 the plaintiff engaged the defendant to watch the erection of the building, on a salary of Rs. 125 monthly, and he continued to be so employed until April 1916, when the plaintiff dismissed him. When the building was completed it was found to be unsatisfactory, and in 1919 it was inspected by Sarat Chandra Sen a retired Engineer, who submitted a lengthy report. Since the completion of the building, it has been taken on lease by the Calcutta Police for a term of several years, at a satisfactory rent. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant secured the appointment by misrepresentation that he was employed to supervise the building operations with full responsibility for the materials and the labour, and that in consequence all the defects in the building are to be attributed to negligence and incompetence on his part.

(3.) In regard to the charge of imposture the plaint is indefinite. In the 5 paragraph it is said that the defendant misrepresented himself as an expert engineer and that he is not a passed engineer or any kind of expert. The plaintiff's deposition is more explicit: she said that defendant told her that he had passed from the Sibpur Engineering College and that he had built a large house in Bailygunge. The learned Judge thinks that he cannot have had the hardihood to claim, the Sibpur degree, but that he very probably did lead the lady to think that he was a properly trained engineer. With this conclusion I cannot agree. The defendant was known to the plaintiff's husband and had been employed by him in connection with some alterations to the house in which the plaintiff and her husband lived. I have no doubt that the defendant was engaged because he was known to the plaintiff and not because he pretended to qualifications which he did not possess.