Under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, oral evidence is inadmissible to contradict or modify the express terms of a written contract. Furthermore, a defense not pleaded in the written statement cannot be entertained or supported by evidence during the proceedings.

JUDGMENT:

Heard Smt. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. J.Rajeswar, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2018 passed in O.S. No. 1907 of 2010 by the learned VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, ‘the trial Court’), wherein the suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.9,98,150/-, was decreed directing the appellants herein/defendant Nos.1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.9,98,150/- with interest at 6% per annum jointly and severally to respondent No.1/plaintiff.

3. The appellants herein are defendant Nos. 1 and 2, respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff and respondent No.2 is defendant No. 3 before the trial Court. The parties are referred to as per their array before the trial Court.

The facts of the case in nutshell are as follows:

4. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.9,98,150/- with 12% interest per annum from defendant Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Defendant No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing No.4-7-90/4/3 situated at Padmavathi Colony, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District. Defendant No.1 is the husband of defendant No.2. Defendant Nos.1 and 2, with an intention to construct a residence, approached the plaintiff and executed agreement on 14.08.2008. The construction area included ground floor (part), first floor and second floor consisting total area of 2150 sft., and ground floor 121 sft. The construction rate was Rs.650/- per sft., from slab to slab. The plaintiff is entitled to payment of additional amount for extra work done at the prevailing rate in the construction agreement and said terms and conditions were accepted. There was delay in payment of the amounts and handing over the site leading to escalation due to increase in labour charges and materials. For the first and ground floor, the construction cost at Rs.650/- per sft., from slab to slab, comes to Rs.14,76,150/-. Due to delay on the part of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the construction work was completed and handed over on 08.08.2009. Inspite of completing the construction, deliberately there is disobedience of the terms and conditions of the agreement and payment is delayed. On various dates, defendant Nos.1 and 2 paid an amount of Rs.7,78,000/-. Whereas, the total construction cost of first and second floor comes to Rs.14,76,150/-, for additional work Rs.3,00,000/-. The total amount payable to the plaintiff is Rs.17,76,150/-, out of the said amount, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have already paid Rs.7,78,000/- and the due amount is Rs.9,98,150/-. When there was no response from defendant Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 19.05.2010 demanding payment. The reply notice was issued by defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeking amicable settlement. Defendant No.3 acted as mediator and defendant Nos.1 and 2 agreed to pay the amount. Even after a number of sittings, defendant Nos.1 and 2 failed to settle the matter. Therefore, the suit was filed when defendant Nos.1 and 2 threatened the plaintiff without paying the due amount of Rs.9,98,150/-.

5. It is the case that defendant Nos.1 and 2 that they and the plaintiff were in a construction agreement to construct total area of 2150 sft., of civil work at the rate of Rs.650/- per sft., from slab to slab. There was delay in delivery of the work and that both the parties are making allegations against each other. A