9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved by the Federation from the plaintiff. It is true that the letters Exhibits 8 and 9 were not written in the presence of P.W.1. He has also not deposed to any such facts as would amount to proof of execution of document. The fact remains that both these letters formed part of the official record of the plaintiff and are placed as pieces or links found in the chain of long correspondence entered into between the parties. The documents having been tendered in evidence without any demur by the defendants, the same coming from proper custody and forming part of official record of the appellant-Corporation and being part of the chain of correspondence can be said to have been proved by P.W.1 more so when his deposition to the effect that the two letters were received from the Federation was not disputed by the defendant-Federation either by directing any cross-examination on that part of the statement or by making any suggestion to the contrary indicating the defendant's case as regards the said two letters. In our opinion, the documents were proved and their contents can be read in evidence. Needless to say, there is no rebuttal of the letters on the part of the defendants by way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 shall be referred to as the 'Federation' and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 shall be referred to as the 'State' for convenience sake. 2. According to the plaintiff, the State through its procuring agent, the Federation, requested the plaintiff through the Government of India to take over 20,000 metric ton of procured paddy of kharif season 1975-76 as per specification and price to be fixed by the Government of India. The request was acceded to by the plaintiff. It was also agreed that the plaintiff shall pay 90 per cent of the amount as advance in nine installments on the condition that the balance 10 per cent will be paid after fixation of price by the Government of India. An amount of ₹ 1.8 crores was to be paid by way of advance. However, by mistake the plaintiff paid a sum of ₹ 2 crores as advance to the Federation during the period 16/2/76 to 27/2/76. In a meeting which took place on 20/9/1976, wherein the representatives of the parties and the Government of India were present, the price of paddy was fixed and it was resolved that the value of the paddy supplied by the Federation to the plaintiff was ₹ 1,60,63,190 as again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h arises for consideration is whether the two letters have been proved. Madan Pathak-P.W.1 was Assistant Manager in Food Corporation of India at the relevant time. He deposed to all the relevant facts in issue and substantiated all the material plaint averments. During the course of his deposition, he stated - Exhibit 7 is the letter given by defendant No. 1 itself. In that letter defendant No. 1 admitted to have received ₹ 2 crores. Exhibits 8 and 9 are the letters given by defendant No. 1. We have filed this suit for non payment of money by defendant No. 1. There is no cross-examination directed on this part of the statement made by plaintiff. There is no suggestion given that such letters were not sent by or on behalf of the Federation to the plaintiff. 9. Both the letters Exhibits 8 and 9 are written on the letter pad of the Federation. Both bear despatch numbers. The letter dated 29 th March, 1977 has been written in response to plaintiffs D.O. No. E-l(7)/75-76/Proc./292 dated 14/03/1977. The letter dated 30 th July, 1977 (Exhibit-9) has been written in response to Plaintiff's D.O. No. ECM/FCI/P/76 dated 16/07/1977. In both the letters, the Federation has disputed it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one by public officers in the course of their official duty and of statements made to them and that in the words of their Lordships in Rajah Muttu Ramalinga Setupati v. Periyanayagum Pillai (1874) 1 Ind. App. 209 at p. 238, they are entitled to great consideration in so far as they supply information of material facts and also in so far as they are relevant to the conduct and acts of the parties in relation to the proceedings of Government founded upon them. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court in that case. 11. The Court further held that once the document has been marked as exhibit without any objection from a party then such party cannot object to the admissibility of document and once a document is properly admitted the contents of that document are also admitted in evidence though those contents may not be conclusive evidence. 12. The documents having been tendered in evidence without any demur by the defendants, the same coming from proper custody and forming part of official record of the appellant-Corporation and being part of the chain of correspondence can be said to have been proved by P.W.1 more so when his deposition to the effect that the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Durga Prosad Chamaria and Ors. [1962]1SCR140 and Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Etc. v. The Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. [1971]2SCR623 ). So long as the statement amounts to an admission, acknowledging the jural relationship and existence of liability, it is immaterial that the admission is accompanied by an assertion that nothing would be found due from the person making the admission or that on an account being taken something may be found due and payable to the person making the acknowledgement by the person to whom the statement is made. 16. The two letters dated 29/03/1977 and 30/07/1977(Exhibits 8 and 9) clearly acknowledge the amount of ₹ 2 crores having been received by the Federation from the Food corporation of India whether by way of advance or by way of deposit. The letters also indicate that the amount of two crores was by way of advance or deposit against paddy procurement. This is admission of jural relationship of buyer and seller which stood converted into relationship of creditor and debtor on the failure of the principal transaction. However, the acknowledged liability is sought to be disowned by submitting that on an account being taken nothi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
