SOHANLAL Vs. GULABCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendants in a suit for recovery of money which was dismissed by the trial court but was decreed by the appellate court.

(2.) SUIT No. 444 of 1951 was instituted in the court of Civil Judge, Ratan-garh on 26-10-51 by Chandmal against Hazarimal, Sohanlal, Bhanwarlal and Suraj Mal for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,999/ -. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendants were partners in a partnership firm Gauri Shanker Sohanlal which had since closed its business and which had carried on business at Shri Karanpur, that the plaintiff carried on transaction of sale and purchase of goods through this firm and made payments from time to time, that the firm sent a statement of account to him which showed a credit balance of Rs. 9266-4-6 in his favour on 5-11-45 (Kartik Sudi 1, S. 2002) and that the amount was not paid to him in spite of several demands made from time to time. It was farther asserted that out of the amount of Rs. 9266-4-6 two items of Rs. 377-2-6 and Rs. 346-14-6 were due on account of wagering transactions and were not recoverable. The suit was brought for the recovery of the balance of Rs. 8542-3-6. It was also stated that a debit item of Rs. 821-3-3 which was shown in account Ex. 1 against the plaintiff on a date subsequent to 5-11-45 was also due on a wagering transaction and was not recoverable from him. It was alleged that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was due by way of interest, but only a sum of Rs. 1456-12-6 was claimed as interest so as to being the suit within the jurisdiction of the civil Judge, Ratangarh.

(3.) THE lower appellate court was of the opinion that the Khata Bahis are not admissible under sec. 34 of the Evidence Act. THE learned counsel for the respondent has sought to support his finding by referring to the decision in Chandi Ram vs. Jamini Kanta (l ). THE learned counsel for the appellants has on the other hand relied on the decisions in the Deputy Commissioner of Bara Banki vs. Ram Parshad (2) and Maung Sit vs. Ma Su (3 ). In my opinion a Khata Bahi is a book of account and if it is maintained in the regular course of business it is admissible in evidence under sec. 34 of the Evidence Act. What weight can be attached to the entries in the Khata which have not been supported by the production of the original account books from which the entries in question have been copied is a different matter altogether. THE lower appellate court was of the opinion that the entries in the Khata unsupported by the original entries are of no evidentiary value. Even full details of the transactions are not given in Khata entries. Pages of the Rokar and Naqal Bahi have been referred to. THEse account books have not been produced. As such no evidentiary value can be attached to the entries made in the Khata. I have referred above to the fact that even if Surajmal was allowed to produce the additional evidence which he sought to produce at a late stage it would not be possible to, hold that the transactions entered in the Ganganagar Khata, in which losses are alleged to have been incurred, were entered into on the instructions of the plaintiff. I accordingly confirm the finding of the lower appellate court that Surajmal has failed to prove that the amount of Rs. 9266-4-6 was completely adjusted towards losses incurred by the plaintiff in transactions with the Ganganagar firm.