AHMAD ALI ABDUL RAZAK Vs. MOHAMMAD HANIF IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the decision of the Additional District Judge, Umaria, in civil suit No. 54 of 1954, decided on 30th December 1955. The plaintiff is the appellant whose suit for Rs. 5000/- against the two defendants failed in the Court below.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 5000/- was borrowed by the two defendants on the 15th June 1952. He produced in support of his case his own account books' showing an entry to that effect. The defendants denied the loan and their case was accepted in the Court below.

(3.) IN this appeal the short question is whether the plaintiff had succeeded in proving his case. No doubt, the account books were produced, but the munim, who wrote them, was not examined. Under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, account books by themselves cannot be sufficient and therefore some other evidence was necessary. This evidence consists: of the plaintiff and of persons who were said to be present at the time the loan was given. The trial Court did not believe these witnesses. The first corroborating witness is a pan seller, Man Mohan singh (P. W. 1), who says: that he was called to the shop of the plaintiff at about 8 or 8. 30 in the night some two and a half years before his evidence, to bring six pans. He also says that he saw the plaintiff and Mohammad Hanif (defendant No. 1) seated there and that the plaintiff paid Rs. 5,000/- to him (Mohammad Hanif) in his presence. This evidence is altogether too artificial. For a pan-seller to remember an incident of this character for two and a half years is almost impossible. We do not say that he could not remember that some money was paid but for him to remember that he had to take six pans and that the persons present in the shop were such and such is indeed a feat of memory. His evidence has also been disbelieved in the Court below. He is described as a chance witness and indeed he is a chance witness.