FATEH LAL Vs. BHAGWATI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 23rd August, 1989 passed by District Judge, Udaipur in Civil Suit No. 60/1984, whereby the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,930/- preferred by the plaintiff-appellant, has been decreed to the extent of Rs. 6,120. 40. The plaintiff- appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court denying the relief to the extent of principal amount Rs. 7,797. 40 plus interest thereon.

(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-respondent both are businessmen, engaged inter-alia in the business of sale and purchase of cotton seeds. THE account between the plaintiff and the respondent was settled. After due adjustment outstanding balance was struck and as on 18th July, 1981 an amount of Rs. 12,000/- was found outstanding against the defendant, which was duly acknowledged by the defendant putting his signature at the foot of the account stated. It was agreed upon between the parties that defendant shall pay interest on the amount outstanding @ 1% per month. However, the defendant made default in making the payment, therefore, the plaintiff preferred a suit for recovery of principal amount a sum of Rs. 12,000/-alongwith interest @ 1% per month quantified at Rs. 3,930/ -. THE plaintiff also claimed interest pendente lite and the future interest till the date the amount is recovered.

(3.) ASSAILING the findings of the learned trial Court on issue No. 1, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that an entry in the books of account regarding a certain sum paid or any other business transaction not supported by any receipt of payment or voucher is not sufficient to establish that the sum was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff or the defendant had any claim with regard to the goods purchased by the plaintiff from him on credit. In this regard, the learned counsel relied upon a Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of Vasireddi Seetharamaiah vs. Srirama Motor Finance Corporation, Kakinada and another (AIR 1977 A. P. 164 ). The learned counsel contended that the bills and the accounts produced by the defendant which do not bear the signature of the plaintiff cannot be relied upon. The learned counsel further contended that the accounts having been settled between the parties, the outstanding balance was struck and the same was duly acknowledged by the defendant putting his signature in the account books maintained by the plaintiff and therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the balance amount as per the "account stated". In this regard, the learned counsel relied upon a Bench decision of Gauhati High Court in the matter of Sachindra Prasad Chakravarty and another vs. Ahmed AM and others, (AIR 1988 Gauhati, 33 ).