1. Suit for recovery of loan amounts — Dispute over liability and corroboration of account entries. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1993 Supreme(SC) 586
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.
State Bank of India, Appellant
Versus
Yumnam Gouramani Singh, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 2964 of 1984, D/-20-7-1993.
Advocates:
A.SHARAN, R.P.SINGH PAL, RAJIV SHAKDHAN, S.S.SHROFF, SURESH A.SHROFF and CO
A.SHARAN, R.P.SINGH PAL, RAJIV SHAKDHAN, S.S.SHROFF, SURESH A.SHROFF and CO
Important Points
Entries in books of account are sufficient to establish liability when corroborated by other evidence, such as witness testimonies, loan documents, and admissions by the defendant, contrary to the view that such entries alone are insufficient under Section 34 of the Evidence Act.
Subject
Banking and Finance Law - Loan Recovery
Act Referred
Headnote
Civil Appeal – Bank – Loan - Suit for Recovery of Money - State Bank of India Manipur, instituted a suit for recovery of a sum from 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 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, 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, High Court allowed the appeal of Yumnam Gouramani Singh and dismissed the suit of the bank – Held, Learned counsel for the appellant bank also contended that the trial Court was not justified in granting a decree for a sum of Rs. 9,962.91 instead of Rs. 44,852.34 claimed by the bank. We do not agree with the learned counsel, trial Court on the basis of the entries in the books of accounts and other corroborative evidence reached the conclusions that the appellant was entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 9,962.91 with interest at the rate of 7 /1 2 per cent per annum from September, 1960 till the recovery of the said amount. We see no ground to interfere with the finding of the trial Court - Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether entries in books of account without independent corroboration are sufficient to establish liability for loan recovery. (Para 4 )
3. The High Court erred by ignoring corroborative evidence including witness testimonies, mortgage deeds, promissory notes, and letters of continuity, alongside the defendant's admissions. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. Entries in books of account, when corroborated by independent evidence such as loan applications, mortgage deeds, and promissory notes, are sufficient to establish liability. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Trial Court decree restored. (Para 7 )
6. Are entries in books of account sufficient to charge a person with liability?
Under Section 34 of the Evidence Act, entries in books of account alone are not sufficient evidence. However, they are sufficient when corroborated by other evidence, such as witness testimonies, mortgage deeds, and promissory notes. (Para 4 )
7. Does an admission in a written statement regarding the taking of a loan support a recovery suit?
Yes, an admission by the defendant in their written statement that they took the loans serves as evidence of liability and corroborates the entries in the books of account. (Para 5 )
8. Can a court interfere with the trial court's calculation of the decreed amount if based on account entries and corroborative evidence?
No, if the trial court reached its conclusion based on books of accounts and corroborative evidence, there is no ground for a higher court to interfere with the specific amount decreed. (Para 6 )
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
