Back
1984 Supreme(J&K) 27
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
M.L. Bhat, J.
Mohan Lal Bodh Raj (Firm) - Appellant
Versus
Dwarka Nath Kuldeep Kumar - Respondent
CSA No. 21/1981
Decided On : 20 July, 1984
Advocate For Appellant: J.L. Sehgal
Advocate For Respondent: D.N. Gupta
A ledger, without corroborative evidence, cannot be admitted as proof of a transaction and used to fasten liability.
Headnote:
EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 34 - LEDGER - ADMISSIBILITY - CORROBORATION - NECESSITY
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff sued defendant for recovery of Rs. 5,000/- for goods supplied. Trial court decreed Rs. 4,700/- and appellate court affirmed for Rs. 4,600/-. Defendant appealed, arguing that the concurrent finding of fact was based on inadmissible evidence, specifically the ledger, which was not a book of account under Section 34 of the Evidence Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a ledger by itself is not proof of a transaction and cannot be used to fasten liability unless corroborated by other evidence. However, the ledger can be considered relevant under Section 34 if there is corroborative evidence on record supporting the entries or the transaction between the parties. The nature of the corroborative evidence depends on the facts of each case.
Issues: Whether a ledger, without corroborative evidence, can be admitted as proof of a transaction and used to fasten liability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several precedents to establish that a ledger, by itself, is not sufficient to prove a transaction or fasten liability. It must be corroborated by other evidence, such as witness testimony, daily cash book entries, or Roznamcha. The court also noted that the nature of the corroborative evidence required would vary depending on the specific facts of each case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the findings of fact by the lower courts were not perverse and were binding on the appellate court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The plaintiff had brought a suit for an amount due from the defendant being price of goods supplied to the defendant. It was alleged that the plaintiff had supplied cloth for an amount of Rs. 8,458-84 to the defendant out of which the defendant had paid Rs. 5,200/- only leaving a balance amount of Rs. 3,358.84 On this amount the plaintiff had claimed interest also and eventually the two courts below on concurrent finding of fact passed the decree as stated above in favour of the plaintiff against the defdt in this second appeal learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the courts below is based on inadmissible evidence, therefore it cannot be sustained. The suit of the plaintiff is based on ledger which is an account book maintained by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that account book in the form of a ledger cannot be brought within the purview of sec- 34 of the Evidence Act sec. 34 of the Evidence Act. envisages that books of account regularly maintained in the course of business are relevant. He submits that the ledger is not a book of account, therefore, sec 34 of Evidence Act cannot be invoked in respect of the ledger. In support of his submission he has relied on many authorities which I will discuss herein below.
3. In Chandi Ram Vs. Jamind Kanta Deka, AIR 1952 Assam 92 it was held that if a ledger is not supported by any Daybook or Roznamcha. it would not fulfill the requirements of Sec 34 of the Evidence Act and cannot be regarded relevant under that section. In the opinion of the Assam High Court there is no daily opening or closing balance in the ledger accounts which is maintained in some other books and ledger can be prepared at any time. Therefore, it cannot be regarded at relevant. Relying on this authority learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the present case ledger would not fall within the ambit of sec. 34 of the Evidence Act, therefore the decree passed by the courts below cannot be sustained. He also relied on Hira Mehar and anr Vs. Birbal Prassd Agarwal, 1958 Orissa 4. which lays down that if the plaintiff relies on the entries in his credit ledger which he has himself scribed but the plaintiff does not assert that the transaction on credit took place actually the credit register cannot be relied upon because there will be no corroboration of the entries made therein He has also relied on Sohan Lal and ors Vs. Gulab Chand, AIR 1966 Raj. 229 The proposition laid down in this authority is that Bahi Khata is an account book if maintained in regular course of business and entries therein are cot admissible if not supported by correspending entries in Rokar of Nagal Behi. Another authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is Zenna Sorabji and others Vs. Mirabella Hotel Col.(Pvt.)Ltd. and others, AIR 1981 Bombay 446. This authority lays down that a ledger by itself cannot be a book of account of the character contemplated by sec. 34 of the Evidence Act unless it is corroborated by the entries in the cash-book. Beni Vs. Bisan Dayal and anothers, AIR 1925 Nagpur 445 has also been pressed into service. It lays that the entries in the backs of account by itself are not sufficient to charge any person with liability unless there is independent evidence of the transaction to which the entries relate.
4. The proposition laid down in these authorities about the admissibility of ledger without the corroborative evidence being led in support of the entries in the ledger cannot be disputed. It is well settled that a ledger, though a account book, has no evidenciary value unless the entries made therein are proved by independent evidence, which in o
