NIRANJAN LAL Vs. MOTILAL GUPTA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No. 1 has filed this revision against a judgment of reversal in a suit for recovery of money on khata account relating to sale transaction.

(2.) ORIGINALLY , there were four Defendants including the present Petitioner. Plaintiff is a registered partnership firm dealing in grocery articles and the Defendants constitute a joint Hindu family, of which Defendant No. 4 is the Karta. Defendants were carrying on business in grocery articles in the name of Defendant No. 1 and for such business used to purchase grocery articles on credit from the Plaintiff -firm in his name and used to make payments from time to time from 1968 to 1969. Defendant No. 1 brought articles from the Plaintiff firm on credit worth Rs. 3,868.15 including previous balance of Rs. 2,805.91 from 14 -11 -1970 to 5 -12 -1970 and made payments of Rs. 3,403.00 between 30 -10 -1970 and to 3 -4 -1971. Thus, a sum of Rs. 465.15 remained outstanding against Defendant No. 1. The other Defendants have been benefited by such transaction. The Plaintiff has entered the present transaction in his accounts as well as the payments made by Defendant No. 1 and the accounts are maintained in regular course of business. The Defendants did not clear up balance in spite of repeated demands including a demand by pleader's notice, in response to which Defendant No. 1 gave reply denying the liability for the claim. The Plaintiff has claimed Rs. 62.64 as compensatory interest with effect from the last date of credit transaction. The total due claimed against the Defendants is Rs. 527.79 paise.

(3.) AN other transactions appearing in the khata account Ext. 4 has been admitted by the Defendant No. 1 excepting the entry dated 12 -9 -1970 for Rs. 570/ -. This relates to the transaction in respect of kerosene oil said to have been sold by the Plaintiff to Defendant No. 1. The appellate Court has not accepted the credit memo Ext. 6 and the sales -tax register Ext. 6. But he has accepted the entry in the sales -tax register Ext. 3. It is well settled that in a suit of the present nature, the Plaintiff cannot get a decree simply on the entry Ext. 4. This entry should be corroborated by some evidence. In Chandradhar Goswami v. Gauhati Bank Ltd. : A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1058, it has been held that the retires in the books of account kept in course of business shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. There has to be further evidence to prove payment of the money which may appear in the books of account in order that a person may be charged with liability there under, except where the person to be charged accepts the correctness of the books of account and does not challenge them Such a question arose before this Court in Kelu Sahu v. Hadibandhu Sahu, 28 (1967) C.L.T. 825. It has been held that Section 34 of the Evidence Act enacts that entries in books of accounts regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to enquire, but such statement shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. All that the law requires is that the entries must be corroborated. Any evidence which is relevant under the Evidence Act would be sufficient for the purpose at corroboration which would vary in each case. The materials for corroborating may be contemporaneous vouchers, receipts or any other documentary evidence or the testimony of witnesses. It is not necessary that independent oral evidence is to be given in each case. Even the evidence of the Plaintiff himself may be sufficient for corroboration provided the Court accepts the same. Thus no Inflexible rule as to the test of corroboration be prescribed. Any relevant evidence under the Evidence Act, if accepted as true can corroborate the entry.