JUDGMENT :

The appellants’ suit filed against the present respondent arraigning him as a defendant in O.S.No.15335/2002 in the Court of XXVI Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, (CCH20) (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “Trial Court”) for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,61,025/- with interest there upon came to be dismissed by the Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 20-11-2010.

It is against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.

2. The summary of the case of the plaintiffs in the Trial Court was that, they being the owners of the property bearing No.16, Khata No.267/230 situated at Arakere Village, Bommanahalli Municipality limits, Bangalore City, entrusted the construction work of a residential house thereupon to the defendant – contractor, agreeing to pay him the consideration at the rate of Rs.71,000/- per square (100 sq.ft.) which included all the necessary provisions such as compound, wardrobe, kitchen cabinet, marble/granite floor etc. The defendant started the earthwork on 18-08-2010. During the period from 20-08-2010 to 25-08-2010, the plaintiffs paid him a sum of Rs.1,50,000/. The foundation work was completed on 18-09-2000 and plaintiffs paid the defendant a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant. In the month of October 2000, the defendant brought an agreement duly written and stating that it is a formality which is required to be signed by the plaintiffs, got the signature on the said typed agreement on 19-10-2000. However, he stated that, some of the Clauses like the payment of 20% of the total estimated amount before commencement of the work can be ignored.

It is further the case of the plaintiffs that, the defendant was receiving money now and then on the pretext of his continued work on the site, thus in total, he has received from the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.6,50,000/-. However, he did not complete the work entrusted to him and also there were many defects in the work which had already been executed by him and that the workmanship was also extremely bad.

It is further the case of the plaintiffs that, they had delivered teakwood purchased by them to the defendant on 04-01-2001 itself and the defendant did not make use of them in preparing windows, doors and the frames within the agreed period. In the meanwhile, the defendant also abandoned the work. This made the plaintiffs to issue a legal notice to him calling upon him to provide the particulars of the cost of the materials and stating that they are entitled for the refund of the excess amount paid and also for damages. The defendant gave an untenable reply to the said notice.

In the process of amicably settling the matter, one Mr. Salim Sharief, a reputed builder visited the spot and at his instance, one Mr. Suresh, a qualified Engineer took the measurement on 11-07-2001 in the presence of the defendant. However, due to unreasonable attitude of the defendant, the efforts of settlement also failed. Since the defendant did not return the teakwood given to him by the plaintiffs, a private complaint in PCR No.588/2001 was filed against him which resulted in the Police filing the First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.157/2001 on 19-08-2001. Thereafter the defendant returned back the teakwood to the plaintiffs on 03-12-2001. The defendant by quoting higher charges for the samples also defrauded the plaintiffs. He himself guided them on several aspects. Some of the structures which were not agreed to be put up were put up by the defendant and variations in work were done by him which all put the plaintiffs into difficulty. Since they have to be repaired, the plaintiffs got an estimation for repair and rework from which they came to know that, they have to spend a minimum of Rs.55,825/- for the said works. By getting valuation of the work done by the defendant through an approved valuer, the plaintiffs cam