1918 (11) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to the sum claimed by the plaintiff.
2. Authenticity and reliability of the plaintiff's account books.
3. Defendant's claim of entitlement and denial of owing any money.
4. Mode of proving entries in the account books.
5. Corroborative evidence for the transactions in question.
6. Legal sufficiency of evidence under Section 34 of the Evidence Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to the Sum Claimed by the Plaintiff:
The plaintiff, a cotton dealer, claimed a sum of Rs. 8,000 from the defendant based on their business dealings over 5-6 years. The plaintiff's claim was supported by entries in his account books, which he argued were regularly kept and genuine. The defendant, however, contended that he was entitled to Rs. 7,000 and did not owe any money to the plaintiff. The court examined the evidence, including the account books and oral testimonies, and found the plaintiff's claim to be credible. The court noted that the plaintiff had filed a list of items with the plaint, giving the defendant ample notice of the transactions in question.

2. Authenticity and Reliability of the Plaintiff's Account Books:
The defendant challenged the authenticity of the plaintiff's account books, alleging they were fabricated. The court observed that the books were properly bound and appeared to be regularly kept. The books had been filed in connection with other suits in other courts, further supporting their authenticity. The court found it improbable that the books were concocted after the parties fell out in December 1915. The defendant's failure to produce any accounts or contradict specific entries further weakened his case. The court concluded that the account books were genuine and represented true transactions.

3. Defendant's Claim of Entitlement and Denial of Owing Any Money:
The defendant claimed he was entitled to Rs. 7,000 and denied owing any money to the plaintiff. He argued that he never drew money without chits and that he kept no accounts of his dealings. The court found this claim extraordinary and unlikely, noting that the defendant was a broker with dealings with other persons as well. The court found evidence that the defendant did draw money without chits and that small amounts were paid through various persons, including peons. The court concluded that the defendant's claim was not credible and that he had indeed drawn money as recorded in the plaintiff's account books.

4. Mode of Proving Entries in the Account Books:
The court acknowledged that the procedure adopted for proving the entries in the account books was not strictly in accordance with the law. However, the defendant's pleader made no objection to the mode of proof in the lower court. The court emphasized that the plaintiff's general statement that all payments were made as entered in the books was supported by specific recollections of large amounts. The court noted that the defendant had ample opportunity to challenge the entries but failed to do so effectively. The court stressed the importance of following proper procedures for proving entries in account books in future cases.

5. Corroborative Evidence for the Transactions in Question:
The court found corroborative evidence for several items through vouchers, chits, and oral testimonies. For instance, the plaintiff's claim of borrowing Rs. 1,500 from Messrs. Gaddam & Co. and paying Rs. 1,391.8.53 to the defendant was supported by evidence. The defendant's failure to produce books of his employees to disprove this claim further supported the plaintiff's case. The court also noted that the defendant's failure to examine his brother in connection with a disputed payment of Rs. 496 weakened his defense. The court concluded that the corroborative evidence supported the plaintiff's claim.

6. Legal Sufficiency of Evidence under Section 34 of the Evidence Act:
The court discussed the legal requirements under Section 34 of the Evidence Act, which states that entries in books of account, regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant but not sufficient alone to charge any person with liability. The court held that the plaintiff had provided sufficient corroborative evidence to support the entries in the account books. The court cited several precedents, including rulings by the Privy Council, to emphasize that corroborative evidence could take various forms and that the plaintiff's evidence met the required legal standards. The court concluded that the plaintiff's evidence, supplemented by the entries in the account books, was sufficient to support the decree.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, finding in favor of the plaintiff. The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court emphasized the importance of following proper procedures for proving entries in account books and the need for corroborative evidence to support such entries under Section 34 of the Evidence Act.