JUDGMENT :

The appeal suit is filed against the decree and judgment dated 29-07-2002 in O.S.No. 9 of 1997 on the file of the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Anantapur (for short, 'the trial Court'). The suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.11,00,000/- from the defendants with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization with costs.

2. The case of the plaintiffs as narrated in the plaint, in brief, is as follows:

The plaintiff is a special class contractor having 40 years of experience and good reputation. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendant No. 1, undertaking the work of widening and lining of Gooty Sub-branch Canal from 3.70 to 4.100. The worth of the contract is Rs.20,86,250/-. As per the terms of the agreement, the work has to be done under the supervision of Executive Engineer, G.B.C. Division, Guntakal. The period of contract is 16 months. The rate of progress of work to be done is 25% work must be completed by the end of 4^th month, 50% of work must be completed by the end of 8^th month, 75% of work must be completed by the end of 12^th month and 100% of work must be completed by the end of 16^th month. Defendant No. 1 agreed to handover the work site on 07-12-1987 to enable the plaintiff to widen the canal from bottom point till ground level. The plaintiff collected men and material at the work site. The plaintiff installed nine cranes, one compressor for removal of earth and rock boulders to the canal bank. The work site was supervised by two site engineers. The plaintiff spent nearly Rs.1,00,000/- for raising sheds and for providing accommodation to workers. He paid Rs.2,00,000/- as advance to contract labourers. The total depth of the canal from ground level is about 12.3 meters. The full supply level of water is 1.6 meters. The plaintiff has completed widening of the canal from ground level to full supply level of water with great difficulty. The plaintiff, on many occasions, made oral requests to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 not to let water into the canal. The plaintiff also addressed a letter to defendant No. 1 expressing his difficulty in performing the contract while water was letting into the canal. The plaintiff made bona fide attempts from 27-07-1990 to 14-01-1991 to attend the work of removing earth from full supply level to bottom level. The bottom level of the canal is silted to a depth of one meter. Due to the said difficulty, the plaintiff was unable to complete the widening and excavation of the canal up to bottom level. Even after that, the defendants let the water into the canal from 05-02-1991 to 05-08-1991 for a period of 180 days. There is continuous breach of contractual obligations in letting of water into the canal. Thus, the defendants created an impossible circumstance at the site to tackle the work from full supply level to bottom level. The other difficulty expressed by the plaintiff is electrical power lines. There are power lines crossing the canal between the chainage K.M. 3.70 to K.M. 3.90. On account of the same, blasting operations could not be done. The authorities of electricity department obstructed blasting operations as power lines would be disturbed. The electricity department lodged cases against contractors. Due to shortage of power supply, the electricity department is not allowing contractors to conduct blasting operations in the canal. The plaintiff suffered mental agony and hardship and also loss of property and other contract works and therefore the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

3. Brief averments in the written statement filed by defendant No. 2 are as follows:

The defendants admitted that the plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendant No. 1 for a value of Rs.20,86,250/- for the work of widening and lining of Gooty Sub-branch Canal from K.M. 3.700 to K.M. 4.100. This work was against an estimated value of Rs.19,04,986/- with 9.52% tender premium excess over the estimated value. Time