1918 Supreme(Mad) 328
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
A Rahim, O Field
M.S. Yesuvadiyan
Versus
P.S.A. Subba Naicker
Decided On : 1 November, 1918
Entries in books of account, regularly kept in the course of business, are substantive evidence, but require corroboration to charge a person with liability.
Headnote:
Accounts - Recovery of Sums - Evidence Act, Section 34
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought to recover sums of money from the defendant based on dealings in cotton over a period of 5-6 years. The defendant denied owing anything to the plaintiff, claiming he was entitled to Rs. 7,000. The plaintiff's evidence mainly relied on entries in his books of account, while the defendant did not produce any accounts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's accounts were genuine and bona fide, and the transactions represented by the entries were true and honest. The court also noted corroborative evidence in the form of vouchers and circumstances supporting the items mentioned in the entries.
Issues: The main issue was the reliability of the plaintiff's accounts and whether they provided sufficient evidence to charge the defendant with liability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that entries in books of account, regularly kept in the course of business, are substantive evidence, but not alone sufficient to charge a person with liability. However, any relevant facts treated as evidence within the meaning of the Evidence Act would be sufficient corroboration of the evidence furnished by entries in books of account, if true.
Final Decision: The court upheld the decree in favor of the plaintiff, dismissing the appeal with costs.
Abdur Rahim, J.
1. The appeal arises in a suit to recover sums of money amounting to Rs. 8,000 from the defendant on the basis of certain dealings. The plaintiff is a dealer in cotton and had been doing business with Messrs. Giddam & Co. and afterwards with the New Berar Company. supplying therewith cotton. The defendant was at first a writer employed in Gaddam & Co.s office and afterwards did business as a broker. Admittedly the defendant had dealings with the plaintiff; he used to pay moneys to the plaintiff by way of deposit and drew moneys from time to time. The dealings out of which this suit has arisen covered a period of 5 or 6 years, and the claim of the plaintiff is that, on taking accounts, he was entitled to the sum which he has claimed. The defendants case, on the other hand, is that he was entitled to R3. 7,000 and odd and not that he owed anything to the plaintiff. The mode of dealings between the parties was of an extremely lax character. The defendant paying in sums of money from time to time never asked for any receipt or voucher for them. According to the case of the plaintiff the defendant drew sums of money daring the last 5 or 6 years on different dates; on some occasions he sent round chits to the plaintiff on which payments were made, but on the majority of occasions, payments were made on the defendants personal request, there being no chits from the defendant authorising those payments. The learned Subordinate Judge has given a decree to the plaintiff as asked for in the plaint. The evidence in the case consists mainly of entries in the plaintiffs books of account. The defendant has not produced any accounts whatever, and the suggestion of the plaintiff is that he has accounts but has wilfully withheld them. The defendant denies that he has accounts but, he says, with reference to about 29 or 30 out of about 200 items, that he did draw those sums and that he recollected having done so, although he has no accounts or other records with which he could refresh his memory. The accounts filed by the plaintiff have been impeached by the defendant as fabrications. The accounts consist of ledgers and day-books. They are properly bound books and from outward appearance the books seem to be regularly kept. The parties fell out sometime in December 1915. Before that, admittedly, they were good friends and there cannot be the slightest doubt that they trusted each other. The case of the defence, if true, would mean that these account-books, covering a period of 6 years and containing accounts of the dealings not only of the defendant but of various other persons, have all been fabricated. It would also mean, on the admitted facts of the case,. that if they were fabricated it was done after the parties fell out, that is, after December 1915. Without saying that it is impossible, I should regard it as extremely improbable that books such as we have before us, have been paged, especially, without any sort of internal evidence whatever in the books themselves to bear out the defendants suggestion that they have been concocted for the purpose of this case. No attempt was, in fact, made in the Court of trial, nor was any serious attempt made before me by Mr. T. Rangachariar who opened the case of the defendant (appellant) to show, from the character of the books or the entries, that the entries were either interpolated or that pages had been removed and new pages containing fresh entries has been substituted. There are, on the other hand, circumstances which would show that there is no substantial reason for doubting the garnishees and the bona fides of these books of account. They had been filed previously in connection with Other suits in other Courts, And the nature of the entries relating to the dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant would in itself make it extremely difficult for the plaintiff to get up false entries to support his case. There are only two entries with respect to which any attempt