TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1961 (2) TMI 82
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was to construct for the appellant on the plot six shops abutting a public road, the main building at the rear of the shops, and out-house and a garage according to a site plain. The respondent was to be remunerated at rates specified in the agreement : for constructions with R.C.C. roofing, the rate stipulated was Rs. 4-2-0 per square foot and for "tiled construction" it was Rs. 3-2-0 per square foot. The Municipality of Bangalore did not sanction the plan as proposed by the appellant. The plan was altered and it was sanctioned, subject to those alterations. By the alterations the shops were deleted from the plan, the area of the out-house was increased, and a puja room on the ground floor and an extra room on the first floor were added to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-47. By this suit, the respondent claimed a decree for Rs. 5,988-12-0 being the remuneration due to him for the work done in constructing the house less Rs. 20,200 received from the appellant. The respondent filed another suit No. 117 of 1945-46 for a decree for Rs. 15,001-10-9 with interest and notice charges being the amount due to him for the construction of the out-house, godown, first floor room and flight of steps and the value of some building materials which the respondent claimed he had left in the premises of the appellant and which the latter had wrongfully removed. 3. The trial court granted to the appellant a decree for Rs. 3,000 in suit No. 54 of 1946-47. To the respondent, he granted a decree for Rs. 2,989-6-0 in suit No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpensation at the rate of Rs. 5 per running foot, and certain additional charges. The High Court held that the respondent was entitled to receive compensation at the prevailing market rate for constructions which where not covered by the agreements dated October 1, 1942 and October 6, 1942. The High Court negatived the plea of the respondent that the appellant had agreed to pay him at "extra rates for deviations and additions not specifically contained in the original agreement." The High Court then held that for the construction of the out-house, puja room and the upper floor room, the respondent was entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 4-2-0 and for the out-house he was entitled to receive "some extra amount for the additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al work done by the respondent, both the parties set up conflicting oral agreements. These were not accepted by the High Court. If a party to a contract has rendered service to the other not intending to do so gratuitously and the other person has obtained some benefit, the former is entitled to compensation for the value of the services rendered by him. Evidently, the respondent made additional constructions to the building and they were not done gratuitously. He was therefore entitled to receive compensation for the work done which was not covered by the agreement. The respondent claimed under an oral agreement compensation at prevailing market rates for work done by him : even if he failed to prove an express agreement in that behalf, th....