Entries in books of account must be proved to be real.

1. The defendants are the appellants herein. The averments in the plaint are as follows: The respondent/ the plaintiff is a partnership firm doing yarn business. The appellants 2 and 3 are the partners of the first appellant firm. The second appellant as the partner of the first appellant purchased certain quantities of yarn on credit from the respondent at Erode on 16.4.1984 for setting right the deficit with Sangili Bank at Coimbatore and Erode. The appellant took delivery of the yarn, Hence they are liable to pay Rs.93,320. The second appellant on behalf of himself and appellants 1 and 3 promised to pay the amount within three days from the date of purchase, i.e., 16.4.1984. They committed default. As per the business usage and the appellants are liable to pay the interest at 18% per annum. The suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.1,09,398.20 with interest at 18% per annum.

2. Written statement was filed by the second appellant, which was adopted by the appellants 1 and

3. According to the written statement, the respondent firm is managed by one Thangavelu in the name of his son, who shows as a partner in the cause title, but actually it is the said Thangavelu, who is behind this action. Thangavelu was the agent of one Sri Hari Mills at Erode. The second appellant is the Managing Director of Sri Hari Mills and the third appellant is the Director. As an agent the said Thangavelu had not furnished the correct account. He has also fabricated several accounts to defeat the claim of the said Hari Mills. Therefore, the appellants 2 and 3 on behalf of Sri Hari Mills, wanted to take action against Thangavelu, one of the partners of the respondent and they had also taken a step to verify the account as a counter steps. The said Thangavelu has filed this suit and other suits in O.S.Nos.189 to 191 of 1985. The claim that the appellants purchased yarn on 16.4.1984 as per invoice No.1/40 is false. There were no transactions between the parties at Erode at any time. The entire amount is false. The invoice is not true. The appellant had not authorised any one to purchase the goods on 16.4.1984. The accounts are all forged. Even if, they are found to be true, the price, value, quality and despatch of goods must be proved. The court has no jurisdiction to try the suits. No part of cause of action took place at Erode. Therefore, the suit must be dismissed.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge of Erode had framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim as prayed for.

2. Whether the claim of the plaintiff is baseless.

3. Whether the entire account is true.

4. Whether the defendants have taken delivery of the times of yarn on 16.4.1984.

5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit.

6. To what relief.

In all, nineteen documents were marked on behalf of the plaintiff/ respondent. Two documents were marked on behalf of the appellant/ defendants. The partner of the respondent was examined as P.W.1. The second appellant was examined as D.W.1 and the learned Judge decreed the suit with interest at 9% per annum of Rs.93,320 from the date of plaint till the date of realisation.

4. Thedefendants have filed this appeal. The question that arises in this appeal is whether the respondent have proved that they have supplied the goods to the appellant and whether the appellant took delivery of the yarn on 16.4.1984.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant took me through the pleadings and documents to show that actually one Doraisamy, appears to have signed in the alleged invoice-Ex.A.11, by which the goods are said to have sent to the appellant on credit. It is the case of the respondent that this Doraisamy was an authorised person of the first appellant, but the appellants have totally denied that there was any such person by name Doraisamy in their employment and they also denied that they had authorised such a person to place orders for purchase of goods or to purchase goods from the respo