The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for independent evidence or corroborative evidence in addition to entries in the books of account, as per Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act.

1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.02.1999 passed in A.S. No. 43 of 1997, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Salem reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.12.96 passed in O.S. No. 71of 1989, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Salem.

2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for recovery of money.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the defendant has received loan from the plaintiff, for the purpose of putting up a complex building in Venkataramanaicker street, Shevapet, Salem and the agreed rate of interest is 24% and the plaintiff is maintaining an account in the name of the defendant in the usual course of business and the amounts received have been given credit to the earlier amounts due and as per the accounts of the plaintiff, the defendant owes a sum of Rs.49,140/- out of which, the principal amount is Rs.47,000/- and the remaining amount being the interest and the last three payments made by the defendant to the plaintiff are by way of cheques dated 26.09.88, 27.10.88 and 30.12.88. After the issuance of the last cheque above stated, misunderstanding arose between the parties, on account of which, the defendant has refused to make further payments and informed that no amount is due from him to the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 11.01.89 to the defendant, calling upon him to pay the suit amount and the defendant sent a reply to the same containing false allegations and hence the suit for recovery of money.

5. The case of the defendant, in brief, is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is false to state that the defendant borrowed amounts for putting up complex building in Shevapet and false to say that the agreed rate of interest is 24% and it is further false to state that amount of Rs.49,140/- is due from the defendant. The defendant took hand loan from the plaintiff for a short while and repaid the same to the plaintiff. Lastly, an amount of Rs.7,260/- was due to the plaintiff and the said amount was repaid by means of three cheques and the entire amount due to the plaintiff had been discharged. The accounts and the income tax assessment of the plaintiff are only self serving documents and not binding on the defendant and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. In support of the plaintiff's case PW1 has been examined and EXs.A1 to A3 were marked and on the side of the defendant DW1 was examined and EXs. B1 to B7 were marked.

7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the trial Court was pleased to decree the suit as prayed for. On appeal by the defendant, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside and consequently, the first appellate court, by allowing the appeal preferred by the defendant, dismissed the suit laid by the plaintiff. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been preferred.

8. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial question of law was formulated for consideration.

"In the absence of any other independent evidence or corroborative evidence can mere entries in books of account alone be held to be sufficient either in proof of liability or discharged of liability, more so in view of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act?"

9. According to the plaintiff, in brief, the defendant borrowed loan from him for the purpose of putting up a complex building in Shevapet, Salem and the agreed rate of interest towards the loan transaction is 24% and after giving credit to the loan amount re-paid by the defendant, still a sum of Rs.49,140/- is due towards principal and interest and as the defendant failed to pay the same despite requests and legal notice and on the other hand, the defendant having sent a reply repudiating the claim of the plaintiff, according to the plaintiff, she has been necessitated to lay the su