SHUBHKARAN RAMESHWARLAL AGARWAL Vs. DURGAPRASAD PVT LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. K. MEHTA J.

(2.) IN my opinion the learned District Judge was in error in treating the statement of accounts Ex. 26 as an additional evidence for purposes of proving the payment of money appearing in the books of accounts in the respondent-Company so as to charge the appellant-defendant with the liability for the amount due at the foot of the said account. There appears to be some confusion about the evidentiary value of the entries in books of account. Though the entries from the books of accounts may be relevant for the purposes of determination of any question but they cannot be the sole basis for fixing the liability upon a person to whose account the payments may have been debited in the books. The provisions of sec. 34 (Evidence Act) are clear enough and they have been constantly interpreted as laying down a rule of evidence that the entries in the books of accounts would not be sufficient for purposes of fixing the liability against a person. There should be additional evidence independent of those entries which would prove the factum of payment in respect of which the entries are made in books of accounts. Therefore the Courts have considered that the entries from books of accounts are corroborative piece of evidence and they would not by themselves be sufficient evidence on the basis of which a liability can be fixed against a person. The observations of the Supreme Court in Chandradhar Goswami and Ors. v. Gauhati Bank Ltd. A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1058 at p. 1060 make it clear that where the entries are not admitted it is the duty of a party seeking to enforce the liability of such entries to produce evidence in support thereof to show that the money was advanced as indicated therein and thereafter the entries would be of use as corroborative evidence. On the plain reading of sec. 34 entries in the books of accounts may be relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. IN other words there should be additional independent evidence by which the factum of payment is to be proved and in that case the entries would he corroborative evidence. It is no doubt true that what should be the nature of additional evidence is always a question of fact depending on the circumstances of each case. It may as has been held by the Courts consist of vouchers receipts bills or any other oral evidence of witness having personal knowledge of the affairs of the transaction