JUDGMENT : SATHISH NINAN, J. A decree for money is under challenge by the defendants in the suit. 2. Defendants invited tender for transportation of rigs for drilling of tube well at Kainakary, from Nedumudy Jetty and bring it back to Nedumudy after the work is over. As per Ext.A1 letter dated 02.02.1992 of the 2nd defendant, tender submitted by the plaintiff was accepted. Exhibit A2 is the agreement dated 06.03.1992 executed between the plaintiff and the Kerala Water Authority. Plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.10,050/- as security amount. It turned out that the rigs were not transported by the plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges default on the part of the defendants for the non-performance of the contract. According to the plaintiff, part of the work as agreed to in Ext.A2 was done by the plaintiff and the suit is laid claiming amount for the works done and for return of the security deposit. Essentially, the work done, as claimed by the plaintiff is strengthening of the existing landing area/platforms at Nedumudy and Kainakri which are item nos.1 and 3 in the schedule to Ext.A1 Agreement. 3. As per Ext.A1, the plaintiff was to commence the work within a week from getting necessary instructions from the 2nd defendant. Exhibit A3 is the telegram dated 06.01.1993 giving instructions in the said regard. Exhibit A4 is the letter dated 22.02.1993 issued by the plaintiff to the 2nd defendant, the contents of which are very crucial with regard to the claim in the suit. The relevant portion of Ext.A4 is extracted hereunder: "22nd February 93 The Superintending Engineer, Water Authority (PHED) Water Authority Circle, Kottayam. Sir, Sub: Conveyance of Rig to Kainakary water tank site. Ref: Your telegram dated 6.1.93. As per your telegram I have made all arrangements to convey the Rig from Nedumudi to Kainakary water tank site. As per your instruction for the purpose of conveyance of the Rig I approached the contractor of rig several times but he has not informed when he will be ready to put the rig on the Junkar and land it at Kaninakary. Hence the delay in the conveyance of the Rig. The landing at the loading and unloading places upto a capacity of 25 tons are ready. Hence the delay in the conveyance of the Rig. The landing at the loading and unloading places upto a capacity of 25 tons are ready. The Junkar is also ready and immediately the contractor of the Rig the date on which he can do his part of the work, I shall carry on the work of conveyance to Kainakary. I have reported the position to the Asst. Engineer Kidangara as well as the Asst. Executive Engineer Edathuva Sub Division. Hence I would request you to instruct the Contractor of the Rig to immediately arrange conveyance of the Rig. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, c.c. Executive Engineer, Water Authority Dvn., Thiruvalla." In Ext.A4, the plaintiff has asserted that all arrangements for conveyance have been made and that the landings having capacity to hold 25 tonnes are ready. The defendants did not issue any reply to Ext.A4. Exhibit A5 is the letter dated 22.05.1993 issued by the plaintiff to the 3rd defendant requesting for payment of part bill stating that the operating agency which is doing the drilling works of tube well will take more time to complete. The said letter is also not replied to by the defendants. Except for admitting the agreement with the plaintiff, other contentions of the plaintiff are disputed by the defendants. They deny that the plaintiff had attended to any work in furtherance of the agreement. According to the defendants the drilling contractor brought rigs of lesser weight and after dismantling into pieces transported it himself. Though the defendants raised such a contention, there is total lack of evidence in the said regard. Exhibit C1 is the Commissioner's report obtained in the suit. It is true that the Commissioner's report is of the year 1996. But the report do state regarding the wooden platforms. The court below on the aforesaid materials has found that the plaintiff has performed his part of the contract on receipt of Ext.A3 telegram. The court below has also found that breach of the contract was committed by the defendants. Though the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants would strongly urge on the basis of the deposition of PW1 to disprove the case of the plaintiff, we find that the documentary evidence available would sufficiently outweigh the other circumstantial evidence, if at all any. The court below has also found that breach of the contract was committed by the defendants. Though the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants would strongly urge on the basis of the deposition of PW1 to disprove the case of the plaintiff, we find that the documentary evidence available would sufficiently outweigh the other circumstantial evidence, if at all any. In Ext.A4 letter it has been unambiguously stated by the plaintiff that the landing places have been made ready to hold the capacity of 25 tonnes. The genuineness and receipt of the said letter is not disputed. If the plaintiff had not done any work in the meantime, he would not have ventured to issue such a letter. The contents therein have not been refuted by the defendants at any point of time. It is true that though PW1 would admit in the box that he has necessary accounts with him to show the amounts expended for strengthening of the platforms, absolutely no scrap of paper has been produced by him. The work as done by him has not been certified by the defendants. There is nothing to indicate that the plaintiff had at any point of time requested the defendants to conduct inspections and take measurements regarding the completion of the work of the platforms. At the same time, it is to be noted that there is total dearth of evidence on the part of the defendants. The claim for transportation charges has been disallowed by the court below since the plaintiff admittedly had no occasion to transport. The claim under the said head has been rightly rejected by the court below. There is no challenge by the plaintiff against the same. As noted earlier, the plaintiff had not satisfied the defendants regarding the work done by the plaintiff. There is nothing to indicate that the plaintiff had been requesting the defendants to conduct inspection, take measurements and satisfy themselves regarding the work done under Ext.A2 agreement. There is total absence of any data from the part of the plaintiff to prove the amounts expended for the works. Though as PW1 the plaintiff would say that the accounts are available, the same are not produced. In the circumstances, we do not think it would be appropriate to grant a decree to the plaintiff for the entire tender amount. Though as PW1 the plaintiff would say that the accounts are available, the same are not produced. In the circumstances, we do not think it would be appropriate to grant a decree to the plaintiff for the entire tender amount. We feel that, in the above circumstances, it would be equitable and just that a decree be given to the plaintiff for realisation of the amounts fixed in the schedule to Ext.A2 tender at page 27, as the estimate of the work, which is Rs.40,000/- and Rs.50,000/- for works 1 and 3 respectively. Admittedly, the plaintiff has made a security deposit of Rs.10,050/-. The plaintiff is entitled to get refund of the said amount also. 4. As regards the rate of interest, we are of the opinion that grant of 12% interest is excessive and it would be appropriate if it be fixed as 9% per annum. 5. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the court below is modified and a decree is passed allowing the plaintiff to realise an amount of Rs.1,00,050/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of suit till realisation and also proportionate costs, from the first defendant. The Appeal Suit is disposed of as above.