- (1.) THESE are cross appeals against one and the same judgment of the Jagir Commissioner, Jaipur dated 6. 12. 61 and are being disposed of by this single judgment. The State Government have assailed the incomes allowed from non-agricultural uses of land, grazing fees and sale of abadi lands. The jagirdar has assailed the amounts dis-allowed under these very heads against the claims made by him.
(2.) WE first take the income from the sale of abadi land. The State Government have questioned the allowing of 11 years' average when Clause 2 (f) of the Second Schedule of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) requires the income from sale of land to be calculated on the basis of average income therefrom during 20 years immediately preceding the basic year. The contention, however, cannot be called to be sound in this particular case. For, admittedly the jagir itself was created only 11 years preceding the basic year. What clause 2 (f) enjoins is only that in order to fix the gross income under this head, the basis will be the average of the income arising during 20 years immediately preceding the basic year. It does not specifically say that in every case it shall be an average of 20 years. When the very age of the jagir is not 20 years old, the taking of average for 20 years cannot at all be possible. In such cases when the jagir itself is not 20 years old, only the income of as many years as the jagir has been in existence during the period preceding the basic year shall be calculated for taking the average under this clause. The learned Government Advocate has also in the end conceded this, and so very rightly. On behalf of the jagirdar the disallowing of the income on account of "shukrana" under this head has been assailed. It has not, however, been possible for him to establish before the learned lower court or before us as to what was actually meant by this expression "shukrana". The very entries in the record produced by him go to show that the income from sale of land has been shown to be different from the income from such a "shukrana". In the former case Pattas have been granted but no such Pattas have been granted in the latter case. The learned counsel for the jagirdar also admits this position to be correct. Whatever may be meant by the expression "shukrana", which the jagirdar appellant himself had defaulted in establishing, it remains a fact that this is not the same as an income from sale of land. When it is so, the learned Jagir Commissioner cannot be called to have committed any mistake in not calculating this income towards the gross income of the appellant. Now, for the remaining two items income from non-agricultural uses of land and sale of abadi land. A bare perusal of the judgment of the learned Jagir Commissioner will go to show that instead of taking his own decisions in this behalf, he appears to have surrendered his judgment to the report of the Internal Auditor of his Department. He may have a matter audited by the Internal Auditors provided to him for his own satisfaction and for the calculation of figures correctly; but such a report can never take the place of an evidence under law. The proceedings under the Act are judicial proceedings. The claims made have, therefore, to be decided in a judicial manner in accordance with the evidence led by the parties. The learned Jagir Commissioner should, therefore, have decided these points on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties and not on the basis of the report made or objections raised by his auditor. This in itself is a ground sufficient to set aside his judgment under these two heads. It will, however, be advisable to make further observations also here. The learned Jagir Commissioner, without saying so explicitly, appears to have declined to believe in the reliability of the account books produced by the appellant only on the ground that they have been written in English and not in Hindi. A language alone cannot decide the standard of reliability or otherwise of an account book. It is the manner of keeping it that has got to be found out and decided. Sec. 314 of the Evidence Act lays down the relevant law in this behalf. It reads "entries in books of account, regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant when ever they relate to a matter into which the court has to enquire," Such statements alone are not to be sufficient to charge any person with liability, vide this very section, but that does not affect the relevancy of such books of account. For an entry being relevant under this section what is required to be shown is that the entry is in a book, that the book is a book of account, and that the book of account is regularly kept in the course of business. The "book" means a collection of sheets of paper bound together with the intention that such binding shall be permanent and the papers used collectively in one volume. Unbound sheets of paper will not, therefore, be a book of account. For treating a book as a "book of account" it is necessary that it contains periodical reckoning i. e. adding, subtracting or both these operations of arithmetic. In the absence of such an operation a book containing any amount of successive entries may be a good memorandum but will not be a book of account. For being a book of account there should be totalling and balancing of the various entries. Similarly the expression "regularly kept" does not mean "correctly kept". It only means that the accounts in the books are kept according to a set of rules or system. If books are kept in pursuance of some continuous and uniform practice in the current routine of business of the particular person to whom they belong, they are to be treated as books of account regularly kept in the course of business. For this purpose the system need not necessarily be an elaborate or a reliable one; nor is it necessary that the entries in the books should be made from day to day or from hours to hours as transactions took place. The time of making the entries and the formality and elaborateness of the system may affect the evidentiary value of the books of account but cannot affect their admissibility into evidence. For deciding the admissibility or otherwise and the relevancy of the' books of account produced in this case, a decision has, therefore, to be taken in the light of these set of rules of law laid down in a series of decisions of Various High Courts. It is on these considerations that it has to be decided whether the books of account produce have been kept regularly in the course of business or not. It does not, however, mean that there is no need of being formally proved that the books produced have been so kept. Wherever such a regular maintenance and general accuracy of the books be not admitted, they need be proved formally. Such a proof can be the evidence of the writer of the book, if he is alive, or if he is not alive, by the evidence of such a person as can identify his handwriting. Next comes the question of deciding whether the entries in the books so produced are sufficient to saddle the Government with the liability or not. Such a corroborative evidence may be oral as well as documentary. It may be in the shape of vouchers or receipts or other documentary evidence. The circumstances surrounding the existence of the book and the circumstances surrounding the transaction which is recorded in the book may constitute sufficient corroborative material. If in addition to the production of such account books regularly kept in the course of business, there is also an evidence of witnesses who prove a number of items claimed, the requirements of sec. 34 may be taken as fulfilled. Only there must be some evidence to corroborate these entries. Such corroboration can be best afforded by the evidence of the person who wrote the account books and in whose presence the transactions took place. If this is proved and it is deposed that the transactions referred to in those entries actually took place in his presence or in the presence or to the knowledge of the witnesses, the entries may be taken to have been corroborated. It is only in cases of doubt in respect of a particular item that specific evidence should be insisted upon to prove those particular transactions. The learned Jagir Commissioner should base his decision about the maintenance of the books of account regularly kept in the course of business as well as the corroboration of the entries therein in the light of the observations made above. The objections or the reports of the Auditors alone are not enough to dispose of these important matters. In this particular case it has been contended at the bar today that the system in this Jagir during the relevant periods was that two separate persons were responsible for the collection of two different sets of demands - (1) rental income, and (2) income from sale of wood, sale of grass, etc. etc. It has been also stated that that was why two sets of cash books were being maintained by two different persons and similarly two sets of receipt books were issued by two sets of different persons. All these are items, if proved which are to be taken into consideration by the learned Jagir Commissioner while deciding this case. We, therefore, accept both these appeals only partially so far as they relate to the incomes from non-agricultural uses of land and grazing fees and set aside the judgment of the learned Jagir Commissioner only so far as they relate to these two items, remand the case to him with the direction that he shall redetermine these items in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above. As regards the income from sale of land, the appeals of both the parties are hereby rejected. .;