Allowed

The Registrar, Sri Venkateshwara and 2 Others v. R.C.Pulla Reddy and 2 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Jan 2024AS/520/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment adjudicates appeals filed by universities against a decree awarding a contractor amounts for construction work. The court modified the decree, holding Yogi Vemana University exclusively liable for the work done post-transfer and set aside the recovery of material loss claims due to lack of evidence.

What did the court decide?

The suit decree is modified; Yogi Vemana University to pay Rs.12,00,000 plus interest; claim for material loss of Rs.2,00,000 set aside.

The Registrar, Sri Venkateshwara and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

¶2

APPEAL SUIT No.499 of 2013 and APPEAL SUIT No.520 of 2013

¶3

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶4

O.S.No.34 of 2009 was decreed in favour of plaintiff by the impugned judgment dated 03.01.2013 of learned I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Defendant No.1, defendant No.2 and defendant No.4 of the said suit preferred A.S.No.520 of 2013 under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). Defendant No.3 and defendant No.5 of the said suit preferred A.S.No.499 of 2013 under Section 96 C.P.C. Thus, these two appeals arose out of the same judgment and therefore, they are considered together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

¶5

A few prefatory facts are to be noticed before adverting to the disputed facts in the case.

¶6

Sri Venkateswara University was established under

¶7

Sri Venkateswara University Act, 1954. Similarly, other conventional Universities were established under different enactments. Subsequently, with a view to amend and consolidate the laws relating to these Universities in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, 1991

¶8

2 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶9

(Act 4 of 1991) was passed. The schedule appended to the Act specifies the University area. Sri Venkateswara University is in Tirupati of Chittoor District. Within its jurisdiction there is S.V. University Post Graduation Centre at Kadapa and also C.P. Brown Regional Research Centre for Telugu Language and Literature at Kadapa. Over a period of time the State of Andhra Pradesh constituted different new Universities. It is in that process Yogi Vemana University was constituted at Kadapa under G.O.Ms.No.31, Higher Education U.E.II Department, dated 09.03.2006. Thereafter by G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 25.07.2006 the Government of Andhra Pradesh exercising powers under Section 56 of the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, 1991 (for short, ‘the Act, 1991’) transferred the assets and liabilities of Sri Venkateswara University Post Graduation Centre, Kadapa and C.P. Brown Regional Research Centre for Telugu Language and Literature, Kadapa from the administrative control of Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati to the newly formed Yogi Vemana University, Kadapa. A little earlier to transfer of the above referred institutions from one University to the other and while Sri Venkateswara University was still holding control over the two institutions certain events

¶10

3 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶11

took place. At Sri Venkateswara University Post Graduation Centre, Kadapa for the construction of Men’s Hostel building tenders were called for and Sri R.C.Pulla Reddy participated in the tender process and in accordance with procedure available with the University the tender was granted in favour of Sri R.C.Pulla Reddy and he accordingly made necessary deposits and the Vice-Chancellor of Sri Venkateswara University gave him the work order dated 24.08.2006 directing him to commence the work immediately. While the said contractor has been attending the contract work entrusted to him, the above referred transfer of institutions occurred. It is in the context of the above facts, the litigation had arisen.

¶12

The contractor Sri R.C.Pulla Reddy filed O.S.No.34 of 2009 as against both the Universities. He pleaded that he has been executing the work and the Assistant Executive Engineer of Sri Venkateswara University/defendant No.4 has been inspecting the progress of the work and from time to time the work measurements were also noted in the M-Book maintained by defendant No.4. That he completed the work to a tune of Rs.12,00,000/-. On one occasion authorities of both the Universities attended the work spot and he was told to expedite

¶13

4 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶14

the work and in the dialogue that took place the plaintiff, on learning about creation of the new University, questioned them as to who would pay him the money for the work he has been executing. It is pleaded that the Vice Chancellor of Yogi Vemana University told him that the authorities of Sri Venkateswara University would pay him the bill. It was at that stage, apprehensive of his payments he demanded all the defendants to pay him to the extent he completed the work till April, 2007. The oral demands did not materialize. He sent a letter dated 26.04.2007 and there was no response and then through a lawyer he sent a legal notice dated 25.05.2007 to both the Universities and that did not bring any respite. It is in those circumstances, he had to sue for the cost of the work he rendered by then along with 18% interest and the cost of the material that was stored and wasted by the indifference of the defendants and towards rental amounts of the material he obtained on hire. For a total amount of Rs.21,87,488/- he sued all the defendants.

¶15

Representing Sri Venkateswara University defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 filed a common written statement. Their pleaded case is that they admitted about the tender process and

¶16

awarding of tender to the plaintiff and about commencement and continuation of work by the plaintiff. It is stated that funds were sanctioned to it by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.468, Higher Education UE-1 Department, dated 02.06.2005 for the construction of Men’s Hostel building. For construction of that building the tender was floated and the plaintiff commenced the work on obtaining work commencement order. Thus, defendants pleaded about transfer of these two institutions to Yogi Vemana University and stated that as the assets and liabilities were transferred to Yogi Vemana University, no liability is there for Sri Venkateswara University. In this written statement they also admitted the correctness of maintenance of M-Book and the supervision rendered by defendant No.4 and it is further pleaded that the Engineer/defendant No.4 was on deputation with Yogi Vemana University and he supervised the progress of the work and maintained the M-Book. They also pleaded that Vice-Chancellor and Registrar of Yogi Vemana University instructed the plaintiff to speed up the work also. In the written statement they disputed the various amounts claimed in the plaint and put the plaintiff to strict proof of the allegations. Finally they prayed for dismissal of the suit as

¶17

6 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶18

against Sri Venkateswara University stating that they are no more liable to pay the amounts overdue as alleged in the plaint on the ground that now the building under construction belonged to Yogi Vemana University, Kadapa. They sought dismissal of the suit.

¶19

Representing Yogi Vemana University, defendant No.3 filed a written statement and it is signed by the Registrar. Be it noted, before the trial Court the Registrar, Yogi Vemana University, Kadapa was added as defendant No.5 on 31.01.2011 by virtue of orders in I.A.No.870 of 2010. In this written statement they denied the plaint mentioned allegations and referred to Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, 1991. It is alleged that the suit is not maintainable since the University is not shown as a party but only Vice-Chancellor and Registrar are shown as parties. It is further stated that Yogi Vemana University is recognized by U.G.C. under Section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 only for the purpose of conducting academic programmes and awarding of degrees and Yogi Vemana University is not yet recognized under Section 12(b) of the University Grants Commission Act for the purpose of financial grants for construction of buildings. It is

¶20

7 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶21

specifically pleaded that between plaintiff and Yogi Vemana University, there is no privity of contract and therefore, the suit is not maintainable against them. It is also pleaded that there was no formal contract entered into between plaintiff and the authorities of Sri Venkateswara University and therefore, plaintiff was not authorized to carry out the alleged construction works. Defendant No.4/the Engineer was not authorized to supervise the alleged works as no competent authority permitted him to supervise and make entries in the M-Book. Rest of the allegations are denied as false and finally sought for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.

¶22

Considering the rival pleadings, the learned trial judge

¶23

framed the following issues for its consideration:

¶24

Whether the defendants 1 and 2 have no responsibility to answer the payment of the bills for the work done by the plaintiff?

¶25

Whether the measurements noted by the Assistant Engineer in the M-Book is without competent authority and or without jurisdiction?

¶26

Whether the plaintiff proceeded with the work without proper agreement and against to the established norms and procedure?

¶27

Whether the plaintiff had done the work worth Rs.12,00,000/-?

¶28

8 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶29

Whether the plaintiff stored the material worth Rs.2,00,000/-?

¶30

If so, whether such material had become waste?

¶31

Whether the plaintiff incurred rent of Rs.1,76,000/- for centering material?

¶32

If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the same from the defendants?

¶33

Whether the claim of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.21,87,488/- is true, valid and binding against the defendants?

¶34

10.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim amount from the defendants?

¶35

11.To what relief?

¶36

In support of their respective cases, plaintiff testified as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of the Sri Venkateswara University, its Registrar testified as DW.1 and got marked Ex.B.1. On behalf of the Yogi Vemana University, its Registrar testified as DW.2 and no documentary evidence was adduced. The learned trial judge considered the entire evidence on record and considered the rival submissions and agreed with the case of the plaintiff to a great extent and decreed the suit in the following terms:

¶37

“In the result, the suit shall be decreed partly with proportionate costs for a sum of Rs.17,62,130/- in favour of the plaintiff, directing the defendants jointly and

¶38

9 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶39

severally to pay a sum of Rs.17,62,130/- to the plaintiff along with interest at the rate of 6% P.A., from the date of the suit till the date of realization and that the rest of the suit claim shall be dismissed without costs.”

¶40

Against the said judgment, these two appeals have been preferred by the defendants.

¶41

In A.S.No.520 of 2013 filed for Sri Venkateswara

¶42

University, Sri Butta Vijaya Bhaskar, the learned counsel submits that the impugned judgment is incorrect on facts and law for the following reasons:

¶43

Ex.A.1-work order dated 24.08.2006 contemplates execution of an agreement on non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.100/- by the plaintiff and that was not done.

¶44

The plaintiff failed to produce evidence through his stock registers to justify his claim of Rs.2,00,000/towards the alleged material that was stored and got wasted but the trial Court without there being proper evidence erroneously decreed that part of the amount.

¶45

10 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶46

Since 25.07.2006 Yogi Vemana University came into existence and all the assets and liabilities were transferred by the Government from Sri Venkateswara University to the newly established University and the building that is under construction now belonged to Sri Yogi Vemana University and it is the beneficiary of that building and therefore, only that University may have liability but the trial Court erroneously decreed the suit as against Sri Venkateswara University also.

¶47

University being a body corporate, law prescribed that a suit is to be instituted as against the University but the plaintiff failed to make the University as a party and therefore, the suit could not have been decreed.

¶48

Trial Court failed to verify the evidence properly and erroneously acted upon the entries in the M-Book which do not disclose the worth of the work being carried out could be stated to be Rs.12,00,000/-.

¶49

The reasoning of the trial Court is erroneous.

¶50

¶51

Dr. VRKS, J

¶52

A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶53

For these reasons, the learned counsel seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.

¶54

Sri Tenepalli Niranjan, the learned counsel for Yogi

¶55

Vemana University/the appellants in A.S.No.499 of 2013 submits that Yogi Vemana University has no knowledge of the works that are alleged in the plaint and that there is no contract between plaintiff and Yogi Vemana University and without there being any liability on their part they are erroneously directed by the impugned judgment to pay the decretal amount.

¶56

That the construction work was carried out without a contract being executed by the plaintiff.

¶57

Funds from UGC have not yet been received by Yogi Vemana University and in that case it could not have been made liable.

¶58

Plaintiff failed to examine the Engineer who prepared the M-Book and that is fatal to the case.

¶59

For these reasons, the learned counsel prays the Court to upset the impugned judgment.

¶60

¶61

Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶62

In both the appeals the plaintiff is respondent No.1.

¶63

Sri Karri Murali Krishna, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that the evidence on record was duly appreciated by the trial Court and accordingly it granted the relief and there is nothing to interfere with in these appeals. Learned counsel further argued that a reading of the pleadings of plaintiff would indicate that in substance and in effect the claim is made against the Universities and the contention that University is not made a party but only the Registrar and Vice Chancellor were made parties is too technical in nature and even that does not survive since on appropriate applications filed, this Court had already ordered for inclusion of the Universities as parties to the litigation. Learned counsel further argued that the evidence would show that these appellants failed to prove any of their contentions and seeks dismissal of both the appeals.

¶64

In A.S.No.520 of 2013 filed by Sri Venkateswara University, I.A.No.1 of 2022 was filed under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking to receive three documents as additional evidence. The said documents are:

¶65

A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶66

¶67

Dr. VRKS, J

¶68

Committee report dated 24.04.2013 along with its enclosures.

¶69

G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 25.07.2006.

¶70

Proceedings of Vice-Chancellor, Sri Venkateswara University dated 23.10.2006.

¶71

The contentions of both sides on this application are also considered along with the arguments in the appeal. During the course of hearing, it transpired that document No.2 - G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 25.07.2006 and document No.3 - Proceedings of Vice-Chancellor, Sri Venkateswara University dated 23.10.2006 are concerned, the oral evidence on record as well as pleadings on both sides already made references to these two documents and their subsistence has never been in dispute and their contents were not disputed before the trial Court as well as this Court. Learned counsels on both sides agreed that exhibiting these two documents do not require any oral evidence on either side. Document No.2 is only G.O.Ms.No.98 whereunder the transfer of assets and liabilities from Sri Venkateswara University to Yogi Vemana University was ordered. Document No.3 is proceedings of Vice-Chancellor, Sri Venkateswara University issued in pursuance of the above

¶72

14 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶73

referred G.O.Ms.No.98. Under these proceedings the transfer of various accounts from Sri Venkateswara University to Yogi Vemana University were done. Therefore, these two documents which are in tune with the oral evidence that was already on record could be accepted as additional evidence and could be marked as Ex.B.2 and Ex.B.3 on behalf of these appellants. With reference to document No.1, it is report of a technical committee consisting of officers of both the Universities and this report is dated 24.04.2013. While the original suit was filed in the year 2009, and the learned trial Court disposed of the suit by its judgment on 03.01.2013, for all those years no technical committee ever chose to inspect the suit mentioned constructions and prepare a report. After suffering a decree at the hands of the learned trial Court and after presentation of this appeal, the Universities chose to have a committee appointed to inspect the suit mentioned structures and make their own evaluations as to how much money could have been expended by the plaintiff for such constructions. Such a report which emanated subsequent to disposal of the suit cannot be taken up for consideration. Hence, document No.1 cannot be

¶74

15 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶75

considered as additional evidence. In the above terms, I.A.No.1

¶76

of 2022 is disposed of.

¶77

On considering the material on record and the arguments

¶78

of learned counsels on both sides, the following points fall for consideration in this appeal:

¶79

Whether the evidence on record did not establish that respondent No.1/plaintiff was not empowered to carry on the work of construction of building?

¶80

Whether the evidence on record established that the claim for money made by plaintiff is disproportionate to the work he had executed?

¶81

Whether the suit was not filed against proper parties?

¶82

Whether Sri Venkateswara University could not be made answerable to the money claimed in the suit?

¶83

Whether Yogi Vemana University could not be made answerable to the money claimed in the suit?

¶84

To what relief in A.S.No.499 of 2013?

¶85

To what relief in A.S.No.520 of 2013?

¶86

16 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶87

Point Nos.1 and 2:

¶88

Ex.A.1 is proceedings of the Vice-Chancellor of Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati issued on 24.08.2006. This was adduced by plaintiff in his evidence as PW.1. The correctness of it was never in challenge before the trial Court as well as before this Court. A reading of this document discloses floating of tenders by the University and participation of respondent No.1/plaintiff and the University finally granting the contract work to him and accordingly he was directed to construct Men’s Hostel at S.V.University Post Graduation Centre, Kadapa and was directed to commence the work immediately. In his oral evidence PW.1 stated that on receipt of those proceedings, he immediately commenced the work. In his cross-examination that fact was never challenged as incorrect. On behalf of Sri Venkateswara University, its learned Registrar deposed as DW.1 and in his evidence he did not question the correctness of this fact. In his cross-examination he admitted the fact of plaintiff commencing and carrying on the work entrusted to him. Thus, commencement of construction work on part of the plaintiff was without any other hindrance and it was embarked upon by him only on receiving proceedings from

¶89

the Vice-Chancellor/defendant No.2 in the suit. The question raised in this appeal is about point No.4 mentioned in Ex.A.1. The same is extracted here:

¶90

“4. He should execute an agreement on a non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.100/- for the due fulfilment of the contract within seven days from the date of receipt of this order and send the same to this office. A form of this agreement and schedules may be obtained from the University Office.”

¶91

A reading of the above point indicates that the University

¶92

was asking the contractor to put it in writing that he would duly execute the work in accordance with the terms that were already agreed upon and this he was asked to reduce it into writing on a non-judicial stamp paper. As the evidence on record indicated no such document was prepared by the plaintiff and no such document was demanded by the University from him after Ex.A.1. It is on the University Campus property the plaintiff was asked to carry on the construction work. It was well within the competence of the University authorities to stop him from proceeding with the construction work until he executed the said document. The evidence on record does not show University authorities ever

¶93

¶94

Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶95

raising such a question either orally or in writing notifying the plaintiff about the need and relevance of such document asking him to stop proceeding with the work. Thus, both the authorities by their conduct waived the need and necessity of such document. The University having consumed the work rendered by the plaintiff and having never raised an objection about such document could not be permitted to raise such an objection years after completion of the work. At any rate, as pointed out by the learned trial Court, University could not be permitted to enrich itself at the cost of the plaintiff who spent his money and labour in carrying out the works entrusted to him by the University itself. Therefore, the contention of the appellants in both the appeals that the plaintiff was not empowered to carry on the work of construction is devoid of merits.

¶96

Having found the plaintiff competent to carry on the contract work entrusted to him, the next fact that falls for consideration is about the extent of work he carried out and the amount of money he is entitled to receive for the same. Pleaded case of plaintiff and his evidence is that Rs.12,00,000/- worth work was executed by him. Earlier to institution of the suit

¶97

19 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶98

under Ex.A.2 dated 26.04.2007 and under Ex.A.3 dated 28.05.2007 this very plaintiff sent letters and notices to the University authorities mentioning the details of the work he carried out stating that for the work he had done till then he was staking his claim for Rs.12,00,000/- to be paid by the University authorities. While cross-examining PW.1, nothing contrary was suggested to the witness. DW.1 in his evidence did not speak any fact contrary to this. Thus, both the Universities did not even respond to the claim made by the plaintiff.

¶99

Facts on record would disclose that defendant No.4 in the suit is an Engineer of Sri Venkateswara University and after establishment of Yogi Vemana University, he was on deputation with Yogi Vemana University. In his evidence PW.1 produced a photostat copy of M-Book prepared by the Engineering Department of the University. The evidence of PW.1 is that periodically the engineer was inspecting the site and taking note of the progress of the construction and made necessary entries in the M-Book. A perusal of this M-Book indicates that the officer on special duty for Yogi Vemana University entrusted this M-Book to Sri Sk. Hidayathulla, the Assistant Engineer, S.V.

¶100

20 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶101

University Post Graduation Centre, Kadapa on 05.06.2006. The

¶102

entries in M-Book and the evidence of PW.1 would show that subsequent to that date periodical inspections of works were done and necessary entries were made till 02.11.2006. The contention of Yogi Vemana University in A.S.No.499 of 2013 is

¶103

that it had no concern with that work and the said Engineer was not authorized to make entries in the M-Book. This contention is against the evidence for the simple reason that this M-Book was handed over by Sri Venkateswara University to Yogi Vemana University and the Special Officer of Yogi Vemana University held control over it and he made specific endorsements to the Assistant Engineer and thereafter, for months together the work went ahead and accordingly, the entries were made by the entrusted officer. In such an event, the contention raised by Yogi Vemana University has to be rejected as incorrect and against facts.

¶104

DW.1 in his cross-examination admitted that Sri Venkateswara University did not make any payments to the plaintiff for the works recorded in Ex.A.5-M-Book. The evidence of DW.1 did not disclose any facts contrary to any of the entries made in the M-Book. The evidence of DW.1 did not disclose any

¶105

21 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶106

fact about the extent of work that was done and the possible amount of money that could be stated to be payable to plaintiff. Coming to the evidence of the learned Registrar of Yogi Vemana University, who testified as DW.2, his examination-in-chief does not indicate any fact about the extent of work that was carried out by plaintiff and the amount of money according to the University that could be said to be due to be paid to the plaintiff. In his evidence he stated that Yogi Vemana University did not receive Ex.A.2-representation and A.3-notice. However, Ex.A.7-postal acknowledgment indicated that it was received by Vice-Chancellor of Yogi Vemana University/defendant No.3 in the suit. Thus, as against the evidence adduced by plaintiff that the work he carried out enabled him to claim Rs.12,00,000/remained virtually uncontested on facts by both the Universities.

¶107

All this evidence was properly considered by the learned trial Court and accordingly it accepted the claim of the plaintiff for that Rs.12,00,000/-. This Court finds no merit in any of the contentions raised by the appellants in both the appeals to see any infirmity in that finding.

¶108

¶109

Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶110

Another component of claim on part of the plaintiff was for Rs.2,00,000/-. His pleadings and evidence as PW.1 are to the effect that while carrying out the construction the contractor had to store certain material and because of the lapses on part of the University authorities he was unable to use that material and that material became waste and therefore, for that he made the claim for Rs.2,00,000/-. Adverting to this aspect of the matter at paragraph No.22 of its impugned judgment, the learned trial Court recorded its observation stating that it is quite natural that the material that was stored in the year 2007 became waste by the year 2009 by virtue of natural decay and therefore it granted Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff. Before this Court this finding is seriously contested by the appellants. On considering the rival submissions and on scrutiny of the evidence on record, the following aspects are to be stated:

¶111

As per Ex.A.6 respondent No.1/plaintiff was a registered Grade-III Civil Contractor. It is he who was executing the building construction work. He must be maintaining a stock register. It is not his case that he has not been maintaining any registers. His stock registers would indicate the quantity of material and the place at which the same was stored and how

¶112

A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶113

much material has been used over a period of time and how much material have been still lying in the stock point. When he is making a claim for Rs.2,00,000/-, these are the primary facts that are required to be established by him. Neither his pleadings nor his evidence even explains the kind of material he was speaking about. He did not file his stock register and did not offer any explanation for his omission to file the stock register. Thus, there are absolutely no details of anything to appreciate his claim for Rs.2,00,000/-. It is obvious that Ex.A.5-M-Book does not contain the stock he allegedly stored. Thus, without there being any evidence to accept Rs.2,00,000/towards the head of loss of material, trial Court granted it. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff failed to show any material to this Court to show the eligibility of plaintiff in seeking recovery of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is in these circumstances; this Court finds that the trial Court committed an error in this regard. Therefore, the claim of respondent No.1/plaintiff to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- granted by the trial Court is incorrect and is set aside.

¶114

Under Ex.A.3-notice issued by the plaintiff to all the defendants he had claimed 18% interest per annum over the

¶115

¶116

Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶117

amounts that were due from the University. As stated earlier, no response was sent by any of the defendants. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the learned trial Court considered that plaintiff was entitled for 12% interest per annum over the amounts overdue. In this appeal no arguments were advanced questioning the correctness of granting interest or the rate of interest that was granted. Therefore, the interest awarded by the learned trial Court need not be interfered with. In view of the discussion made above, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered against the appellants.

¶118

Point Nos.3, 4 and 5:

¶119

Pleadings of both the Universities admit that S.V. University Post Graduation Centre, Kadapa and C.P. Brown Regional Research Centre for Telugu Language and Literature, Kadapa originally belonged to Sri Venkateswara University and after constitution of Yogi Vemana University they were transferred to Yogi Vemana University. Construction of Men’s Hostel work which were there on the campus of S.V. University Post Graduation Centre at Kadapa commenced while it was under the control of Sri Venkateswara University and while the

¶120

work was in progress, the said institution was brought within the jurisdiction of the newly constituted Yogi Vemana University which rendered its supervision and the work was carried out for further few months. Each University by its pleadings disowned responsibility for payment. The responsible Universities disowning their liability in such a manner is not in good taste. For various inactions on part of Sri Venkateswara University, the learned trial judge in its impugned judgment with reference to transfer of funds criticized Sri Venkateswara University and it is for their lapses he made Sri Venkateswara University also liable to pay the amounts as one could see from paragraph No.15 of the impugned judgment. Learned counsel appearing for Sri Venkateswara University in A.S.No.520 of 2013 questions those findings of the learned trial Court. Coming to Yogi Vemana University, the learned counsel submits in A.S.No.499 of 2013 that there was no privity of contract between it and the plaintiff and therefore, it could not be made liable. A few more contentions are raised in this regard. Both the Universities in their pleadings as well as before this Court contended about funds meant for payment of construction of the subject matter building. In paragraph No.4 of its written

¶121

26 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶122

statement, Sri Venkateswara University pleaded that Government issued G.O.Rt.No.468, Higher Education UE-1 Department dated 02.06.2005 providing funds to strengthen the S.V. University Post Graduation Centre, Kadapa at the disposal of the Sri Venkateswara University. Thereupon the Registrar called for tenders for the construction of Men’s Hostel building at S.V. University Post Graduation Centre, Kadapa and after completion of process of tendering, plaintiff was selected as contractor of the work and entrusted it to him. In subsequent paragraphs it pleaded about transfer of funds and transferring funds accordingly. Exs.B.2 and B.3 which are now marked in this appeal are with reference to that. Ex.B.1 was exhibited before the trial Court on behalf of Sri Venkateswara University and that refers to list of vouchers and relevant reports about all the fund transfers. DW.1 was not chosen to be questioned in cross on behalf of the Yogi Vemana University. All this would go to show that according to Sri Venkateswara University, funds for construction of the subject matter building were from the State Government. As against that, for Yogi Vemana University, it was pleaded that the funds for construction of this building were from UGC and Yogi Vemana University was not granted

¶123

financial liberty and therefore it could not be made responsible. Be it noted that despite elaborate pleadings in the written statement, Yogi Vemana University did not exhibit single document claiming truth in its version. No explanation was offered for failure to exhibit any of those documents. In the grounds of appeal in A.S.No.520 of 2013 filed by Sri Venkateswara University, they mentioned about UGC Grants and ineligibility of Yogi Vemana University in receiving those grants because of absence of recognition from UGC in this regard. This much is towards the pleadings of both the Universities. Ex.A.1-work order does not indicate from which funds this work was to be carried out according to the University. Thus, the plaintiff was never appraised of these fund issues. In the evidence both the Universities did not disclose by document anything to make a Court to appreciate as to from which source these funds were coming to the University for construction of the building. It is admitted by both sides that the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, 1991 governs these Universities. The purport of Section 6-A of the Act, 1991 is about transfer of institutions from one University to the other. From the date of such transfer of institutions the transferee

¶124

¶125

Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶126

University was empowered to maintain such institutions and is

¶127

responsible for all that is relevant for those institutions.

¶128

Section 45 of the Act, 1991 is extracted here:

¶129

“ 45. General Fund:- The University shall have a general fund to which shall be credited:-

¶130

(i) its income including the fees and endowments;

¶131

(ii) contribution or grants which may be made by the Government on such conditions as may impose; and

¶132

(iii) other contributions or grants.”

¶133

Thus, when it comes to funds as it is seen from the provision that the grants from the Government or grants from elsewhere shall be maintained as a general fund. Under Ex.B.3 all the funds were transferred to Yogi Vemana University.

¶134

In the light of Section 6-A and Section 45 of the Act, 1991, it can be said that though the plaintiff was entrusted with the work of construction of Men’s Hostel building by Sri Venkateswara University, the property on which such construction was taken up having been brought under the newly constituted Yogi Vemana University and as the

¶135

¶136

A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶137

Government authority already notified by virtue of Ex.B.2 that all the assets and liabilities and the ongoing works stood shifted to Yogi Vemana University and under Ex.B.3 all the relevant funds were also transferred to Yogi Vemana University, the obligation to pay to the plaintiff has to be shouldered by the Yogi Vemana University. Learned trial Court made Sri Venkateswara University also liable only because it is annoyed with the indifference and inaction on part of Sri Venkateswara University. That emotional rage cannot be justified on the basis of any legal principle. Therefore, the contention of Sri Venkateswara University in A.S.No.520 of 2013 that it could not be made responsible to answer the claim of the plaintiff has to be accepted. Coming to Yogi Vemana University, its contention that there is no privity of contract between it and plaintiff has no legal basis. It cannot have both the institutions and then say it is not responsible for any works being carried out at those institutions. It never stopped the plaintiff from doing the work. As mentioned earlier, it is Yogi Vemana University which handled Ex.A.5-M-Book. In these circumstances, the sole liability is on Yogi Vemana University which is found to be the final beneficiary of the work carried out

¶138

30 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶139

by the plaintiff on its compass. Therefore, the liability to pay the money claims of the plaintiff must be exclusively shouldered by Yogi Vemana University.

¶140

As per Section 3(3) of the Act, 1991, University shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall sue and be sued by the said corporate name. SubSection (4) of Section 3 of the Act, 1991 states that in all suits and other legal proceedings by or against the University the pleadings shall be signed and verified by the Registrar and all processes in such suits and proceedings shall be issued to and served on the Registrar. The cause title in the suit shows that plaintiff sued Registrars and Vice Chancellors of both the Universities. The question raised before the trial Court as well as here by both the Universities is that Registrars and Vice Chancellors cannot be made personally liable. To that extent, the submission is correct. The question raised by them is that University is not made a party and therefore, the suit ought not to have been allowed. For two reasons this contention has to be negatived. The averments in the plaint in their letter and spirit shown that the claim is made only against the Universities and not against its officers. Sure, there is misdescription of the

¶141

31 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶142

authority. Had the cause title mentioned Sri Venkateswara University represented by the Registrar and Yogi Vemana University represented by the Registrar everything could have been proper. However, the cause title reads the Registrar, Sri Venkateswara University and the Registrar, Yogi Vemana University. As long as the substance answers the true spirit of law, any procedural lapse by itself cannot be given undue weight. Moreover, during the pendency of the appeals, the respective Universities were brought on record as authorities represented by their respective Registrars. That was done in both the appeals without any objection being received from the Universities. Thus, even that formal description defect stood cured. It is in these circumstances; it has to be recorded that all necessary authorities are there on record and the litigation could not fail for any imperfections in descriptions. Hence, point No.3 is answered against the appellants. Since Sri Venkateswara University is found not liable to pay the amounts claimed, point No.4 is answered in favour of Sri Venkateswara University in A.S.No.520 of 2013. Since Yogi Vemana University

¶143

is found liable to pay the claims, point No.5 is answered against Yogi Vemana University in A.S.No.499 of 2013.

¶144

Point Nos.6 and 7:

¶145

Respondent No.1/plaintiff is found right in his claim for Rs.12,00,000/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of Ex.A.3-notice dated 28.05.2007 till the date of filing of the suit on 04.08.2009 and thereafter on that principal sum adjudged of Rs.12,00,000/- plaintiff was entitled for 6% interest per annum till realization and the plaintiff is entitled for proportionate costs. These amounts shall be paid by Yogi Vemana University, Kadapa. To this extent, the judgment and decree of the trial Court stand modified.

¶146

In the result, A.S.No.499 of 2013 is allowed in part modifying the impugned judgment and decree dated 03.01.2013 of learned I Additional District Judge, Kadapa in O.S.No.34 of 2009 in the manner referred above. The payments shall be made to the plaintiff on or before 31.03.2024. A.S.No.520 of 2013 filed by Sri Venkateswara University is allowed and to that extent, the trial Court judgment stands modified. There shall be no order as to costs in these appeals.

¶147

Exhibits marked on behalf

¶148

of the appellants in A.S.No.520

¶149

33 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶150

of 2013 in view of the orders passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022:

¶151

Ex.B.2 : G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 25.07.2006. Ex.B.3 : Proceedings of Vice-Chancellor, Sri Venkateswara University, dated 23.10.2006.

¶152

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

¶153

shall stand closed.

¶154

_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J

¶155

Date: 12.01.2024 Ivd

¶156

34 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.Nos.499 and 520 of 2013

¶157

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

¶158

APPEAL SUIT No.499 of 2013 and APPEAL SUIT No.520 of 2013

¶159

Date: 12.01.2024

¶160

Ivd

The Registrar, Sri Venkateshwara and 2 Others v. R.C.Pulla Reddy and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Registrar, Sri Venkateshwara and 2 Others v. R.C.Pulla Reddy and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pepakayala Janaki Siromani Manikyamba Satya Devi, Vs Pepakayala Suryanarayana

Naguluri Satyanarayana Vs Rallabandi Bala Hanumantha Raju

Gunna Ramakrishna Vs Bodda Krishna Kumar

Hafiz Basheer Ahmed Vs Abdul Gaffar and Another

The v.C., Kadapa Dist and Ano Vs R.C. Pulla Reddy, Kadapa Dist and 3 Othrs

Cheerla Naganna at Cuddapah Naganna Vs Koya Naganna