Back
2007 Supreme(All) 1399
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rajesh Tandon
U P FOREST CORPORATION
Versus
BHIM SINGH
Decided On : 07 May 2007
First Appeal No. 864 of 2001
Anirudh Bhatt, J.C.Pandey, V.K.BISHT,
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act to create a quasi-contractual obligation for the benefit of a person lawfully performing a non-gratuitous act.
Headnote:
Contract - Recovery Suit - Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act - [Section 70] - The court discussed the application of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, which imposes an obligation on a person enjoying the benefit of a non-gratuitous act to make compensation to the person who lawfully does the act. The court referred to the case law and highlighted that Section 70 creates a quasi-contractual obligation, distinct from contract or tort, to prevent unjust enrichment.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of payment for work executed in a forest range. The defendants denied the plaintiff's claim, asserting that the work was not authorized and was carried out by another individual.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decided in favor of the plaintiff, acknowledging the work executed and ordering the defendants to pay the outstanding amount with interest.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff executed the work and was entitled to payment, and whether the defendants had given the contract to another individual.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act to establish the plaintiff's right to compensation, emphasizing that the absence of a formal contract did not deprive the plaintiff of the claim.
Final Decision: The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed with costs.
2. Present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 14-10-1992 passed by the District Judge, Pithoragarh in Civil Suit No. 16 of 1988.
3. Briefly stated the plaintiff re spondent filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 10,096. 90 against the defendant ap pellant. According to the plaintiff he was carrying out the work of cutting, sawing and transporting the Giltas and timbers at Dhandhura-Askote Range, Pithoragarh. There were several lots in cluding lot numbers 7/84-85,8/84-85,97 84-85 and 10/84-85. The Giltas and tim bers of these lots were to be transported through head load from the lot site to river bed from where they were to be transported ahead through wire span and head load to Jauljibi Depot.
4. The plaintiff was entrusted the work of cutting and sawing in lot no. 7/ 84-85 to 10/ 84-85. The defendants agreed to pay to the plaintiff the charges of sawing and preparing Giltas @ Rs. 24/- per cubit meters and for transport ing the same up to the river bed @ Rs. 250/- per cub meters. After the execu tion of the work, the plaintiff was made payment by defendants in respect of lot no. 7/84-85, 8/84-85 and 10/84-85. The defendants did not make payment to the plaintiff with respect of the work ex ecuted by him in lot no. 9/84-85. As per the account prepared by the Accountant, the work in lot no. 9/84-85 was executed by the plaintiff worth Rs. 10,096. 90. The plaintiff served a notice under sec tion
80 C. PC. on the defendants but the defendants have failed to pay the outstanding amount to the plaintiff.
5. The defendants have filed the written statement and has denied all the material particulars alleged in the plaint. The defendants have alleged that the plaintiff worked only in the lots as per agreed rates according to work, order. The payment of the same has already made to him. Neither he executed any work in respect of lot no. 9/84-85 nor he was given work order for that work.
6. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :
hether the plaintiff executed contract lot the work in respect of lot no 9/s4-85 and also com pleted the same in March 1986? If so, its effect ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs entitled to payment in respect of work completed in lot no. 9/84-85 ?
3. Whether the defendants gave contract of lot no. 9/84-85 to one Sri Narain Dutt Patni and the payment thereof was made by the defendants to him, if so, its effect ?
4. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?
7. On the basis of the evidence ad duced by the parties the trial Court has decided issues no. 1 and 2 in the af firmative in favour of the plaintiff and issue of Rs. 10,096. 90 against the de fendants with costs and interest @ 6% per annum.
8. Feeling aggrieved the present ap peal has been preferred by the defend ant- appellants.
9. In this case the defendants have come with the case of total denial. The defendants have asserted that there was neither any work order given to the plaintiff for the work of Job No. 9/ 84-85 nor there is any contract in between the parties for that work. The defendants have submitted that the work on job no. 9/84-85 has been done by one Sri Narain Dutt Patni but Sri Narain Dutt Patni has not been examined
by the defendants, The defendants have exam ined D. W. I Ram Singh to prove that payment was made to Sri Narain Dutt Patni for job no. 9. However, this wit ness in his cross-examination has stated that there was no work order in the name of Sri Narain Dutt Patni. The plaintiff has filed Ex. 3, which has been prepared by D. W. I R. S. Nayal, an offi cial of the Forest Department. The plain tiff has successfully proved that he has done work in job ho. 9/84-85.
10. If (here is no agreement or con tract in writing, the claim of the plain tiff that he has actually done the work covers by the provisions of Section 70 of the Contract Act, which cle
