B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree dated 13-4-1988 passed in O. S. No. 482 of 1983 on the file of Additional Subordinate judge, Guntur, the defendants have filed this appeal.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff in O. S. 482/1983 has filed cross-objection as the court below did not grant the interest claimed by him on rs. 1,16,022/- from the date of completion of the work till the date of the plaint. The parties hereinafter referred to are as they are arrayed in the suit.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff was entrusted with the work relating to levelling of house sites in 17 blocks of four plots each in Harijanawada of palaparru with estimated costs of rs. 10,000/- for each block on nomination basis. He was permitted to proceed with the work by the defendants on estimated rates under the guidance of Supervisor-II (Pr) and p. S. Prattipadu. The plaintiff executed the required agreement for the said works. He completed the works within the stipulated time i. e. , 30-9-1980. The defendants made part payment of Rs. 1,500. 00 in the month of august, 1980. The total value of the work done by the plaintiff is Rs. 1,58,000. 00. In spite of repeated demands, the defendants failed to pay the balance of Rs. 1,43,000. So the plaintiff issued notice under Section 80 of cpc on 27-9-1982. After receiving the notice, the defendant s made part payment of rs. 74,966 on 19-94983. Since the defendants failed to pay the balance amount, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of rs. 1,16,022/- with interest thereon @ 12 per cent per annum.

( 4 ) THE defendants filed written statements contending that the plaintiff did not attend the levelling of plot nos. 1,4,5,8,11,72 and 73 and that the beneficiaries themselves got the plots levelled. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any amount for levelling the said plots. It is also contended by them that the plaintiff received Rs. 74,966. 00 on 19-9-1983 towards full satisfaction of his claim and therefore he was not entitled to claim any further amounts from them. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial court settled the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the amount as stated in the plaint? (2) Whether the discharge pleaded by the defendant in para 4 of the written statement is true? (3) To what relief?

( 5 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff, he got himself examined as P. W. I and marked exs. A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the defendants. D. Ws. l to D. W. 4 were examined and Ex. B-1 to B-24 were marked. On considering the evidence and on hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of rs. 67,836/- with proportionate costs and with subsequent interest at 6 per cent from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation while refusing to grant interest from 30-9-1980 the date on which the plaintiff completed execution of the works. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants have filed the appeal and whereas the plaintiff has filed the cross-objection.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants/ defendants contends that the respondent/ plaintiff having accepted the measurements recorded in check measurement book (Ex. B-1) cannot be permitted to contend that he attended the work more than what was recorded therein. It is also contended by him that the respondent/plaintiff received rs. 74,966/- under Ex. B-24 towards full satisfaction of the claim and so he is not entitled to claim the suit amount. It is further contended by him that the lower court has not appreciated the evidence brought on record both oral and documentary, in right perspective and thereby erred in granting decree for Rs. 67,834. 00. Learned counsel for the respondent/plain tiff submits that the respondent/plaintiff received Rs. 74,966. 00 towards part satisfaction of his claim and therefore he is entitled to claim the balance amount. He further submits that the lower c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document