1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.10.1996 passed in A.S. No. 54/1996, on the file of the VIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 09.03.1994 passed in O.S. No. 5132/1988, on the file of the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for recovery of money.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that he is carrying on business as an Engineering contractor in the matter of construction of buildings and accordingly, as per the understanding entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff constructed a house for the defendant and completed the construction in the year 1981 and accordingly, submitted the bill with reference to the same on 07.03.1981 amounting to Rs.52,305/-, after deducting the payment made by the defendant for a sum of Rs.30,000/- as on 12.11.1981, a sum of Rs.22,205/- was due from the defendant and thereafter, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- on various occasions and subsequently paid another sum of Rs.2,000/- by way of a cheque on 06.09.1984, leaving the balance of Rs.15205/-. Inasmuch as the defendant had failed to pay the above said amount, despite several demands made by the plaintiff, according to the plaintiff, he had issued a legal notice dated 03.09.1986, calling upon the defendant to pay the said sum with interest and to the same, the defendant sent a reply containing false allegations, as if, no sum is due to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant, with reference to the construction of the house, built up by the plaintiff. It is false to state that it is only the defendant, who had supplied all the materials for the purpose of construction. The plaintiff had submitted the estimate and bills duly to the defendant and therefore, it is false to state that the defendant had not been supplied with any bills by the plaintiff. Though the work was completed as early as October 1981, inasmuch as the defendant had made payment for a sum of Rs.2000/- admitted his liability on 06.09.1984, the suit is in time and not barred by limitation and hence, the suit for recovery of money.

5. The case of the defendant, in brief, is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. It is false to state that the plaintiff gave an estimate for Rs.53,000/- to the defendant and the same had been accepted by the defendant. It is false to state that out of a total sum of Rs.52,305/- towards the value of the construction put up by the plaintiff, after the sum paid by the defendant, the defendant is still due to pay a sum of Rs.15205/- to the plaintiff. To the notice issued to the plaintiff, with reference to the same, the defendant had sent a reply containing true facts and the defendant had supplied all the materials for the purpose of construction and accordingly, the defendant had made the total payment amounting to Rs.37,000/- to the plaintiff, which is over and above the amount payable by the defendant and therefore, it is false to state that the defendant still owes sum to be paid to the plaintiff. The defendant denies that the estimate and the bills were submitted to him by the plaintiff and the defendant is not liable to pay the suit sum and interest, as claimed in the suit. There is no cause of action for the suit and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. In support of the plaintiff's case, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 and A9 were marked and on the side of the defendant, DW1 was examined and Ex.B1 has been marked.

7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the trial Court was pleased to decree the suit as prayed for. On appeal, the first appellate Court was pleased to set-aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and by way of allowing the appeal preferred by the defendant, dismissed the