IQBAL SINGH Vs. HARDAYAL RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff Hardayal Rai, had brought a suit for recovery of Rs.6,27,000/- against defendant Iqbal Singh, on the averments that plaintiff is sole proprietor of M/s Hans Raj and sons; that he is maintaining account books consisting of Rokar bahi, Gadda bahi and Khata in ordinary course of business and balances are worked out on daily basis; that the plaintiff firm is also assessed for the income tax and sales tax and assessment is based on bahi entries; that the defendant was selling his crop through the commission agency of the plaintiff and was obtaining loans/credit from time to time; that the defendant took a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- on 20.9.2005, for purchase of car and entry was duly made in Rokar bahi; that the defendant again took an amount of Rs.1,400/- on 30.9.2005 and it was duly entered in the account books; that an amount of Rs.15,425/- was debited to the account of the defendant as interest @ 18% per annum from 20.9.2005 to 31.3.2006, on the instructions of the defendant; that the defendant got manauti for Rs.11,200/- of Harbans Singh s/o Narain Singh on 13.5.2006 and an entry was duly made in that regard in Rokar bahi; that the defendant again took an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 28.6.2006 and it was duly entered in the Rokar bahi; that the defendant took an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- on 1.7.2006 and an entry was duly made in Rokar bahi; that the defendant sold his crops amounting to Rs.97,500/- on 21.4.2006 with the plaintiff and after deducting the necessary expenses, the defendant received amount of Rs.921/- and an amount of Rs.96,000/- was credited to the account of the defendant and entries were duly made; that an amount of Rs.7,500/- was credited to the account of the defendant on 30.5.2006 as bonus for the crop and an entry was duly made in the Rokar bahi; that all the abovesaid transactions were entered in khata of the defendant; that the defendant had agreed to pay interest @ 18% per annum and in that way an amount of Rs. 4,99,525/- as principal amount and Rs.1,27,475/- as interest from 1.4.2006 to 30.8.2007, total amount of Rs.6,27,000/- was due to the plaintiff from the defendant. On refusal of the defendant to pay such amount to the plaintiff, he filed the suit in question.

(2.) On being put to notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement, contesting the suit contending that an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- was due upto 1.7.2006 and plaintiff Hardyal Rai confirmed the same in his own hand writing in the diary of the defendant; that on instructions of defendant Raj Pal Singh cleared the said amount of Rs.2.25,000/-; that the defendant had stopped all types of dealings with the plaintiff; that the plaintiff is not maintaining his account books correctly and no presumption under Section 34 of the Evidence Act could be raised in that regard. However, the defendant admitted that he had sold crops through the commission agency of the plaintiff. He also admitted that he had been selling the crops but denied that plaintiff used to adjust the amount of the said crops and denied having received the amount on 1.7.2006. In the end he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) The plaintiff filed replication, controverting the allegations in the written statement, whereas reiterating the averments made in the plaint.