Proof of oral construction contract terms is essential; a unilateral final bill without supporting evidence cannot sustain recovery.

A recovery claim based on an alleged oral construction contract failed where the claimant could not prove the agreed terms, the rate for each item of work, or the actual expenditure by reliable evidence. The court treated the unilateral final bill as insufficient because it was unsigned, prepared after completion, and unsupported by original bills, vouchers, or proof of prevailing market rates. A compromise recorded in dishonoured cheque proceedings did not establish the genuineness of the civil claim. On that evidentiary basis, the decree for recovery could not be sustained and the suit was wrongly decreed below.

---

---

Issues: Whether the decree for recovery could be sustained on the basis of an alleged oral construction contract and a unilateral final bill, in the absence of proof of the agreed terms, market rates, and supporting original bills, vouchers, or material.

Analysis: The Court accepted that privity of contract and an oral agreement between the parties existed, but held that the plaintiff still had the burden to prove the stipulations of the contract and the rate for each item of work. The final bill relied upon was unilateral, unsigned, and generated after completion of the work. The plaintiff also failed to produce original bills, vouchers, or material to establish the expenditure incurred or the market rate of the items executed. The criminal court compromise under the dishonoured cheque proceedings did not establish the genuineness of the civil claim.

Conclusion: The decree could not be sustained on the basis of the unilateral bill and insufficient proof of the claim; the suit was wrongly decreed below and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: In a recovery suit founded on an oral construction contract, the claimant must prove the agreed terms and the value of the work by reliable evidence; a unilateral bill unsupported by bills, vouchers, or proof of market rates is insufficient to decree the claim.

---