V. R. SUBRAMANYAM versus B. THAYAPPA AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 663 · Decided: 01-02-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
I 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
V. R. SUBRAMANYAM 
v. 
B. THAYAPPA AND OTHERS. 
(J. L. KAPUR and J. C. SHAH, JJ.) 
663 
B11ilding contract-Defective work-Addition•! work not covered 
by agreement-Compensation, when can be allowed-Indian Contract 
Act, I872 (9 of I872), s. 70. 
The appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent 
who was a building contractor entrusting him with the work of 
constructing a house and shops. The respondent undertook the 
work but before it could be completed disputes arose between 
them and the appellant claimed compensation for effecting repairs 
to rectify defective work done by the respondent, and the 
respondent claimed compensation at certain rates set up by him 
for work for which there was no express provision in the written 
agreement. Suits based on their respective claims were filed by 
the appellant and the respondent which were partly .decreed by 
the trial court. The High Court dismissed the appellant's suit in 
its entirety and remanded the respondent's suit directing the 
appointment of a qualified engineer for determining, according to 
the directions given in the judgment, the amount payable to the 
respondent for work done in addition to the agreed work under 
the contract. The appellant contended that the respondent having 
failed to prove the oral agreement pleaded the respondents' suit 
should have been dismissed and compensation quantum meruit 
which was not claimed should not have been awarded. 
Held, that if a party to a contract rendered service to the 
other not intending to do so gratuitously and, the other party 
had obtained some benefit, the former was entitled to compensa-
tion for the value of the services rendered by him. The respondent 
not intending to do gratuitous work was entitled to compensation 
for additional work not covered by the written agreement. 
Even if the respondent failed to prove his claim for compen-
sation at the prevailing market rate under an oral agreement the 
court had jurisdiction to award compensation for work done under 
s. 70 of the Contract Act. 
The appellant's suit having been dismissed by the High 
Court and no appeal having been preferred against it, it was not 
open to him to reagitate the same question of compensation in 
the companion suits in which no equitable set-off was claimed. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeals 
Nos. 321 and 322 of 1956. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and 
decree dated September 21, 1951, of the Mysore High 
Court in Regular Appeals Nos. 3, 24, 13 and 25 of 1948-
49; arising out of the judgment and decree dated 
8~ 
February 1. 
Subramanyarn 
v. 
Thayappa 
Shah ]. 
664 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
January 9, 1948, of the Principal District Judge, 
Bangalore, in Original Suits X os. 55 of 1946-4 7 and 
117of1945-46 respectively. 
S. K. Venkataranga Aiyangar and S. K. Aiyangar, 
for the appellant. 
B. K. B. Naidu., for the respondents. 
1961. February 1. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
SHAH, J.-V. R. Subramanyam, the appellant herein 
is the owner of plot No. 29, Subedar Chattram Road 
in the town of Bangalore. B. Thayappa respondent 
is a building contractor. Tho appellant entrusted the 
respondent with the work of constructing a house and 
shops on the plot, on terms and conditions set out in 
a written agreement dated October 1, 1942, which was 
slightly modified on October 6, 1942. 
By the agree-
ment the respondent WftS to construct for the itppellant 
on the plot six shops ft butting a public roa.d, the main 
building ftt the rear of the shops, an out-house and a 
garage according to a site plan. Thll respondent was 
to be remunerftled at rftte.q specified in the agreement: 
for constructions with R. C. C. roofing, -the ra.te 
stipulated was Rs. 4-2-0 per square foot anrl for" tiled 
construction " it was Rs. 3-2-0 per square f1JoL 
The 
:Municipality of Bangalore did nnt sanction the plan 
as proposed by the appellant·.. The plan was altered 
and it was sanctioned, subject to LLosc alterations. By 
the alterations the shops were deleted from the plan, 
the area of the out-house was increased, anrl a puja 
room on the grnund floor and a,n extrn room on the 
first floor were arlr],,d to the plan. 
A compound wall 
was also to be constructed. The respondent carrird 
out a subRtantial part of the construction work accord-
ing to plan anrl the appellant paid to him diverse 
sums of money and delivered building materials. The 
aggregate H.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.