MOHAN LAL BODJ RAJ Vs. DWARKA NATH KULDEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,000/- the trial Court has passed a decree for an amount of Rs. 4,700/- in favour of the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant which was affirmed in appeal by District Judge, Jammu for an amount of Rs. 4,600/-.

(2.) The plaintiff had brought a suit for an amount due from the defendant being price of goods supplied to the defendant. It was alleged that the plaintiff has supplied cloth for an amount of Rs. 8,458-84 to the defendant out of which the defendant had paid Rs. 5,200/-only leaving a balance amount of Rs. 3,358.84. On this amount the plaintiff had claimed interest also and eventually the two Courts below on concurrent finding of fact passed the decree as stated above in favour of the plaintiff against the defdt. In this second appeal learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below is based on inadmissible evidence, therefore it cannot be sustained. The suit of the plaintiff is based on ledger which is an account book maintained by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that account book in the form of a ledger cannot be brought within the purview of S.34 of the Evidence Act. Sec.34 of the Evidence Act envisages that books of account regularly maintained in the course of business are relevant. He submits that the ledger is not a book of account, therefore, S.34 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked in respect of the ledger. In support of his submissions he has relied on many authorities which I will discuss herein below.

(3.) In Chandi Ram v. Jamind Kanta Deka, AIR 1952 Ass 92 it was held that if a ledger is not supported by any Day-book or Roznamcha, it would not fulfil the requirements of S.34 of the Evidence Act and cannot be regarded relevant under that section. In the opinion of the Assam High Court there is no daily opening or closing balance in the ledger accounts which is maintained in some other books and ledger can be prepared at any time. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as Relevant. Relying on this authority learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the present case ledger would not fall within the ambit of S.34 of the Evidence Act, therefore the decree passed by the Courts below cannot be sustained. He also relied on Hira Meher v. Birbal Prasad Agarwal, AIR 1958 Orissa 4, which lays down that if the plaintiff relies on the entries in his credit ledger which he has himself scribed out the plaintiff does not assert that the transaction on credit took place actually the credit register cannot be relied upon because there will be no corroboration of the entries made therein. He has also relied on Sohan Lal v. Gulab Chand, AIR 1966 Raj. 229. The proposition laid down in this authority is that Bahi Khata is an account book if maintained in regular course of business and entries therein are not admissible if not supported by corresponding entries on Rokar or Nagal Behi. Another authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is Zenna Sorabji v. Mirabella Hoter Col. (Pvt.) Ltd., AIR 1981 Bom 446. This authority lays down that a ledger by itself cannot be a book of account of the character contemplated by S.34 of the Evidence Act unless it is corroborated by the entries in the cash-book. Beni v. Bisan Dayal, AIR 1925 Nag 445 has also been pressed into service. It lays that the entries in the books of account by itself are not sufficient to charge any person with liability unless there is independent evidence of the transaction to which the entries relate.