The court ruled that a contract described as tainted by fraud must be supported by specific evidence of wrongdoing; mere suspicion is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

M.G.S. KAMAL, J.

1. These regular first appeals are by the plaintiff as well as by the defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2012 passed in O.S.No.915/2002 on the file of XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court') by which the trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and has also rejected the counterclaim set up by the defendant.

2. Parties are referred to as per their original rankings in the suit.

3. Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff:

Plaintiff filed the above suit for judgment and decree directing the defendant to pay Rs.17,48,000/- together with the cost, current and future interest @ 18% per annum contending inter-alia that:

(a) Plaintiff being desirous of putting up a residential building on his property bearing No.1411, 8th main, Judicial Layout, Opp. Jakkur Flying School, Bangalore, had engaged services of one Mr.Suresh Babu, Engineering Consultant as an architect for the project, who as agreed had obtained and furnished all engineering details, drawings, permissions and sanctions from the Local Authority for the purpose of construction of a residential building measuring 5,275 sq. ft.

(b) The said architect had floated tenders for turnkey construction consisting of works. The estimated cost of construction that was submitted by the architect prior to the commencement of the project was Rs.37,63,000/- while the total cost of construction estimated by the architect including plumbing and electrical work was Rs.42,43,000/.

(c) In response, three contractors had submitted their tenders. That though one M/s.Rashmi Construction was the lowest bidder, the architect finally recommended defendant as a contractor on the premise that the said M/s.Rashmi Construction had withdrawn the tender and of the remaining two, defendant was the lowest. Plaintiff accordingly accepted the recommendation.

(d) That the defendant and the said architect had earlier jointly worked on several other projects. The plaintiff from the inception had found that there was a collusion between the architect and the defendant with an intention to defraud the Plaintiff.

(e) The plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.4,00,000/- on 25.01.1999 to the defendant for the commencement of the work. The defendant presented the first bill dated 23.04.1999. The architect had verified the measurement at the site and had certified the same and on his certification, the plaintiff made payment to avoid any delay in the work.

(f) That the second bill dated 28.03.2000 was presented after a gap of 11 months for a huge sum of Rs.27,70,000/-. By this time, the plaintiff had suspected the bonafides of both the architect and the defendant. Prior to submission of second bill, the plaintiff had requested the architect to physically verify the said bill at the construction site making necessary inspections, measurements and discussions together with the plaintiff and until then the said bill shall not be certified. The architect in collusion with the defendant had certified the second bill within 15 days for a sum of Rs.29,70,000/- while the first bill which was only for a smaller sum of Rs.4,80,000/-, had been certified after more than one and a half months of its presentation. The Plaintiff had no other option but to pay the said second bill amount.

(g) Subsequently on a separate physical verification of the measurements of the site, the plaintiff found that the quantity of the work actually done was far less than what was noted in the bill. The quality