2013 (1) TMI 267 - SC - Indian Laws

Default in return of advances - onus to prove - Advance of money to the agriculturists and charging commission on the sale price of the agricultural produce - All the transactions between the parties were entered in the books of accounts - a sum of Rs.5,80,000/- stood in the name of the defendant towards outstanding balance as acknowledged under his signature in the corresponding account entry in the account books of the plaintiffs - defendant neither returned the money nor brought any agricultural produce for sale to the shop of the plaintiffs - defendant denied his signatures - Held that - The present case is not one such case where the plaintiffs have chosen not to adduce any evidence. They have examined witnesses, proven entries in the books of accounts and also proven the acknowledgements duly signed by the defendant. The defendant, on the contrary, except making a bald denial of the averments, had not stated anything else. That apart, nothing was put to the witnesses in the cross-examination when the documents were exhibited. He only came with a spacious plea in his evidence which was not pleaded. Thus, no hesitation in holding that the High Court has fallen into error in holding that it was obligatory on the part of the plaintiffs to examine the handwriting expert to prove the signatures. The finding that the plaintiffs had failed to discharge the burden is absolutely misconceived in the facts of the case. It is obligatory on the part of the defendant to specifically deal with each allegation in the plaint and when the defendant denies any such fact, he must not do so evasively but answer the point of substance. It is clearly postulated therein that it shall not be sufficient for a defendant to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiffs but he must be specific with each allegation of fact as decided in Badat and Co., Bombay v. East India Trading Co. 1963 (5) TMI 45 - SUPREME COURT) Variance in the pleadings in the plaint and the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs - aspect impressed by High Court - Held that - There is one variation, i.e., at one time, it is mentioned as Rs.6,64,670 whereas in the pleading, it has been stated as Rs.6,24,670 and there is some difference with regard to the date. In our considered view, such a variance does not remotely cause prejudice to the defendant - it cannot be said that because of variance between pleading and proof, the rule of secundum allegata et probate would be strictly applicable. In the present case, we are inclined to hold that it cannot be said that the evidence is not in line with the pleading and in total variance with it or there is virtual contradiction. Thus, the finding returned by the High Court on this score is unacceptable. Rejection of books of accounts - Held that - The plaintiff No. 2, his accountant and other witness have categorically stated that the books of accounts have been maintained in the regular course of business applying the principle as laid in CIT, Delhi v. Woodward Governor India Private Limited 2009 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT to the pleadings and the evidence on record no reason that the books of accounts maintained by the plaintiff firm in the regular course of business should have been rejected without any kind of rebuttal or discarded without any reason - thus set aside the judgment of the High Court.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit.
2. Locus standi and cause of action.
3. Non-joinder of necessary parties.
4. Burden of proof regarding the signatures.
5. Variance between pleadings and evidence.
6. Reliability of books of accounts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Suit:
The defendant argued that the suit was not maintainable, asserting that the liability, if any, was of Kewal Krishan, not the defendant. The trial court found the suit maintainable, stating the plaintiffs had the locus standi and cause of action to file the suit, and this was upheld by the appellate courts.

2. Locus Standi and Cause of Action:
The trial court held that the plaintiffs had the locus standi to file the suit, as the business transactions with the defendant were proven, and the cause of action arose from the defendant's failure to repay the borrowed amount. This finding was supported by the appellate courts.

3. Non-joinder of Necessary Parties:
The trial court found that the plea regarding non-joinder of necessary parties was not pressed by the defendant and thus did not affect the suit's validity. This was not a point of contention in the higher courts.

4. Burden of Proof Regarding the Signatures:
The High Court overturned the lower courts' judgments, stating that the burden of proof was incorrectly placed on the defendant to disprove his signatures. The Supreme Court, however, held that the plaintiffs had proven the signatures through witnesses and documentary evidence, and the defendant's denial was evasive and insufficient. The Supreme Court emphasized that the plaintiffs were not required to examine a handwriting expert as the signatures were proven without objection, and the defendant's denial was not substantiated.

5. Variance Between Pleadings and Evidence:
The High Court noted a variance between the amounts mentioned in the pleadings and the evidence, which it found significant. However, the Supreme Court found the variance minor and not prejudicial to the defendant. The Supreme Court stated that such minor discrepancies do not warrant the dismissal of the suit, especially when the defendant was not taken by surprise or prejudiced.

6. Reliability of Books of Accounts:
The Supreme Court upheld the reliability of the plaintiffs' books of accounts, which were maintained in the regular course of business and were not disputed by the defendant. The Court cited the principle that accounts regularly maintained in the course of business are presumed correct unless proven otherwise, which the defendant failed to do.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in its judgment by misplacing the burden of proof and overemphasizing minor variances in the pleadings and evidence. The Supreme Court restored the judgments of the trial and appellate courts, affirming the plaintiffs' entitlement to recover the amount along with interest. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside.