(1.) The action which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiffs, now respondents, to recover Rs. 1,66,493-4-0 from B.N. Ry. Co., on account of price of work done by the plaintiffs as members of a joint Mitakshara family in a certain section of the construction known as the Amda-Jamda Branch. The case stated in the plaint is that the defendants offered to the father of the plaintiffs Ramji Madhoji, who is now dead, contract work in the said construction subject to his signing certain schedules which are usually printed forms of agreement; that the plaintiffs father signed the schedules for earthwork, bridge work and miscellaneous work and delivered the schedules to the District Engineer of Chaibasa; that after carrying on the works for two or three months plaintiffs and father discovered the work to be unusually difficult and expensive and the scheduled rates to be grossly inadequate and the conditions contained in the schedule were hard and unjust.
(2.) The contractors expressed their inability to work at the rates agreed upon and pressed for cancellation of the contract; and for settlement of higher rates and better conditions, that this led to a, discussion and the result of the discussion was that the defendant company had abandoned the plaintiffs schedules and had prepared new schedules containing higher rates which however were not accepted by the contractor (plaintiffs) and further that the defendant proposed to leave the question of rates open with a view to ascertain later on an estimate of the contractor's expenses after sufficient progress of the work and that the defendant company assured the plaintiffs of their well established policy to pay final rates at which contractors can make a profit and that reasonable rates will be paid; that on the faith of these assurances the plaintiffs went on with the work and completed the same; that during the progress of the work the contractor kept the defendant company duly informed of the difficulties and the costs from time to time so that these might be taken into consideration at the final determination of the rates; that although attempts were made by the defendant company as well as by the plaintiffs to settle final rates in advance the attempt failed but the work was not stopped on the mutual understanding that the final rates would be ascertained on the completion of the work; that the work was completed in December 1924 but notwithstanding attempts to settle the rates no agreement was reached; that the Company, while admitting its liability to pay reasonable rates maintained that the rates worked up by the District Engineer in the measurement book were sufficient. In para. 8 of the plaint the plaintiffs state their main objections to the rates worked up by the District Engineer as aforesaid.
(3.) The plaintiffs admit that in pursuance of an oral arrangement the Contractor was supplied by the defendant with explosives free of charge for blasting purposes and consequently the plaintiffs rates for the cuttings are based on their expenses and do not include the cost of explosives. The plaintiffs further state that in spite of repeated demands the defendant Company failed to pay their dues and as the defendant Company were having the benefit of plaintiffs money the plaintiffs were entitled to get interest at 1 per cent per month since July 1925. The plaintiffs accordingly prayed for the following reliefs, viz., a decree for (a) Rs. 1,26,863-8-0 or any other amount found due as the value of the work done by plaintiff for defendant. (b) Rs. 40,629-12-0 or any other amount of interest adjudged due. (c) further interest for the period of the suit, until realization on the total claim, (Rs. 1,67,493-4-0). (d) Costs of the suit. (e) Other reliefs.