TATA LOCOMOTIVE AND ENGINEERING CO LTD Vs. SARDAR KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (After stating the allegations of the plaintiff and the defendant and the issues arising thereon His Lordship proceeded). (1) The first question that has been urged in this appeal is one of estoppel and acquiescence covered by issue No. 22. The facts necessary tor the determination of this question are as follows: On the 19th of September, 1952, the defendant Company sent a letter to the plaintiff contractor to the following effect:

(2.) It was argued before the learned Subordinate Judge, as it has been argued before us, that the acceptance "of Rs. 31,302-8-0 by the Contractor, paid by cheque, in full and final settlement of his claim, estopped him from making any further claim from the Company. This argument was not accepted by the learned Judge, who has held, upon oral and documentary evidence in this connection, that the Contractor had not accepted the money sent by the cheque in question, in full and final settlement of his claim, and as such, the suit is not barred by estoppel and acquiescence.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge under issue No. 22 is incorrect, and that upon the facts mentioned above, the plaintiff cannot successfully claim that further amounts are due to him under the two contracts. Learned Counsel has urged that the plaintiff was paid Rs. 31,302-8-0 ''in full and final settlement of his claim against the Company under the two contracts. Having accepted the money, it is urged, the plaintiff cannot turn round and say that he had accepted Rs. 31,302-8-0 but not in full and final settlement of his claims. Learned Counsel has strongly contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to accept the defendant's money amounting to Rs. 31,302-8-0, on his own terms. He could have, it is urged, accepted the defendant's money on the defendant's terms or he should have refused to accept the defendant's money on the defendant's terms. In this connection, learned Counsel has relied upon Sheikh Ma-homad Jan v. Munshi Ganga Bishun Singh, 38 Tnd App 80 and Chotu Mia v. Mt Sundri, AIR 1945 Patna 260 (FB).