Judgment

KULDIP SINGH, J.:- State Bank of India at Imphal, Manipur, instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rupees 44,852.35 from Yumnam Gouramani Singh. The trial Court by its judgment dated December 31, 1971 decreed the suit partly and held that the bank was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 9,962 91 with interest at the rate of 7 1/2 per cent for the period from September 22, 1960 till the recovery of the amount. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the bank as well as Yumnam Gouramani Singh filed appeals before the High Court. The High Court disposed of both the appeals by a common judgment dated August 19, 1977. The High Court allowed the appeal of Yumnam Gouramani Singh and dismissed the suit of the bank. The appeal filed by the bank was, as a consequence, dismissed. The appeal by the State Bank of India is against the judgment of the High Court.

2. Ten issues were framed by the trial Court. Issues Nos. 3,4 and 7 were as under :-

"3. Did the defendant borrow from the Manipur State Bank Ltd. Rupees 15,000/- on 16-3-54, Rs. 10,000/- on 19-9-55 and draw an overdraft showing a debit balance of Rs. 9438,13/2 on 21-12-56?

4. Has the defendant paid Rupees 11,300/- as being not covered in the account filed by the plaintiff?

7. Is the defendant not liable for the debts as they are being payable by the partners of the Engineering Corporation.?"

The trial Court dealt with the above quoted issues in the following manner:-

"Issues Nos. 3, 4 and 7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff does not press for these issues, moreover, the defendant in his written statement, admits that he took the said 3 loans from the Manipur State Bank. Further, the defendant has not led evidence to show that a sum of Rs. 11,300/- had already been repaid against the aforesaid loans. Again Exts. A/ 2, A/3 and A/4 show that the defendant, on his personal capacities. took the aforesaid by mortgaging his properties. Further, the promissory notes Exts. A/ 9, A/ 8 and the letters of continuity, Exts. A/ 10, A/7 also show that the defendant is personally liable for repayment of the loan. Therefore, the partners of the Engineering Corporation cannot be made liable for repayment of the said loans. The three issues are therefore decided against the defendant."

3. It is thus obvious that the trial Court decided issues 3, 4 land 7 in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and held that the respondent-defendant borrowed the sums of Rs. 15,000/-, Rupees 10,000 /- and also availed of the overdraft current account facility with the bank. The trial Court decreed the suit in the following terms :-

"In view of my findings, in the above issue the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 56,047.52 (loan amount plus interest till Sept. 1960) less the amount already paid by the defdt. towards the repayment of the loan. As per schedule of the plaint the defendant had already repaid a sum of Rs. 46,084.62. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 9,962.91. The plaintiff is also liable to recover interest on the said amount of Rs. 9,962.91 at the rate of 7 1/2 per cent per annum for the period from 22-9-60 till the recovery of the amount subject to the maximum of the said amount from the defendant on payment of necessary Court-fee."

4. The High Court reversed the findings of the trial Court primarily on the ground that there was no evidence on the record to corroborate the books of accounts which were produced by the appellant before the trial Court. Relying upon Section 34 of the Evidence Act, the High Court held that the entries in the books of account alone are not sufficient evidence to charge the respondent with liability. The High Court further held that since there was no evidence on the record to support the entries in the books of account, the case against the respondent was not proved. We do not agree with the High Court. We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error in reaching the conclusion that there was no evidence to corroborate th