UDAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) preferred by the Jagirdar against the judgment of the Additional Jagir Commissioner dated 27th September, 1961. The case of the award of compensation and rehabilitation to the appellant had been finalised by the Additional Jagir Commissioner on 15th September, 1960. An appeal was, however, preferred against it in which the reductions made in the incomes from grazing fees, non-agricultural uses of land and sale of Abadi land had been questioned as well as the deductions made had been assailed. The appeal was accepted and the case was remanded by order of the Board dated 20th May, 1961 directing that the Additional Jagir Commissioner should have examined whether the books of accounts produced in support of the income claimed had been maintained in the regular course of business as required under Sec. 34 of the Indian Evidence Act and whether the entries of items relating to these incomes were corroborated by any independent evidence. The contention regarding deductions was also referred back to be examined whether the deductions had been made on account of a decree against the brother of the appellant. The learned Additional Jagir Commissioner has this time examined the Rokar Bahis, Exhibits P. 1, P. 2 and P. 3 for Samvat years 2007, 2008 and 2009 maintained and produced by the appellant. He has pointed out Bahi-wise a series of defects as described on pages 1, 2 and 3 of his judgment. On the basis thereof, the learned Additional Jagir Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the books of account cannot be called to have been maintained in the normal course of business. We have examined those defects as well as the books of account produced. The defect pointed out by the learned Additional Jagir Commissioner are such as may be found in any state of account books. They cannot be called to be enough to discredit them about the maintenance in the normal course of business. The defects may also have occurred at the time of the scribing them itself and might have been corrected then and there. The books might have also been stitched in a careless manner. Besides it is not evident as to how the bunch of papers are small or large. A book of accounts envisaged under Sec. 34 of the Indian Evidence Act is a collection of sheets of paper bound together with the intention that such binding shall be permanent and the papers shall continue to be used collectively in one volume. There should also be a reckoning i. e. addition or subtraction or both of these operations of arithmetic involved in maintaining such a book. That would lead to the totalling and balancing of the accounts and would go to make such a collection of papers bound together to be a book of account. In other words if a bundle of papers are stitched together with an intention to be kept permanently so and to be used collectively in the form of one volume, containing regular totalling and balancing at a fixed interval of whatever big period, they would be treated as a book of accounts. Corrections over-writings etc. or such other defects may affect the creditworthy-ness thereof, but still they would be books of accounts. "regularly kept in the course of business" similarly does not mean "correctly kept". THIS expression only denotes that the accounts in the books are kept according to a set of rules or system. If books are kept in pursuance of some continuous and uniform practice in the current routine of the business of the particular person to whom they belong they are "books of account regularly kept in the course of business". Whether this system is an elaborate one or not will also not affect it. Even the harash memorandum of accounts kept in accordance with the most elementary system will be admissible under Sec. 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. To judge the evidentiary value thereof it would be seen whether they have been kept normally and there were checks against fraud etc. secured by the method of maintaining them. Simply on the basis of certain corrections or additions pointed out by the learned Additional Jagir Commissioner as referred to above it cannot therefore, be said that the books of accounts produced by the appellant have not been kept in the normal course of business. Committing mistakes in writing and correcting them is quite normal and can be found to be done even in the best system of keeping accounts. That alone will not make them un-worthy of treating to have been kept regularly in the course of business.

(2.) THE learned Jagir Commissioner should have examined the books of accounts with this criteria and then examined them about reliability and the evidence produced in corroboration of the relevant entries made thereon, and then decided the claims made by the appellant.