Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S. Barman And G. K. Misra, JJ.
HARIBUX GOURI SANKAR FIRM - Appellant
Versus
SUBHAKARAN TULSIRAM - Respondent
First Appeal 82 Of 1962
Decided On : DECEMBER 17, 1964
EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 34 - BOOKS OF ACCOUNT - REGULARLY KEPT IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS - INTERPRETATION - PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE BOOKS PRODUCED IN COURT HAD BEEN KEPT IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS - SUIT DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,318-15-9 as the price of 200 tins of groundnut oil allegedly supplied on credit to the defendant firm. The plaintiffs relied on entries in their Jama Bahi and Ledger to support their claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the entries in the plaintiffs' Jama Bahi and Ledger were not made in the usual course of business and that the plaintiffs failed to explain the practice followed in making the entries. The court also noted that the plaintiffs did not produce all the accounts in chronological order and that there were unexplained gaps in the entries.
Issues: Whether the entries in the plaintiffs' Jama Bahi and Ledger were regularly kept in the course of business.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the books produced in Court had been kept in the regular course of business. The court relied on Section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which states that entries in books of account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant when they refer to a matter into which the Court has to enquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability.
Final Decision: The plaintiffs' suit was dismissed with costs throughout. The defendants' cross appeal for costs was allowed.
BARMAN, J.
( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs appellants for recovery of rs. 5,318-15-9 as price of 200 tins of groundnut oil alleged to have been supplied on February 29, 1952 on credit to defendant No. 1 Messrs. Subhakaran Tulsiram a firm of which defendant No. 2 Tulsiram is said to be the managing proprietor. The plaintiffs also claimed Rs. 1,436-0-3 as interest, the total amount claimed in the suit being Rs. 6,755/ -. The suit was filed on February 28, 1955 after giving notice. In support of the plaintiff's claim they relied on certain entries in Jama Bahi Ext. 1 and Ledger, Ext. 2. In defence the plaintiffs' alleged claim was denied. It is alleged that the suit was filed out of enmity due to litigation between the parties with which back-ground we are not directly concerned for the purpose of deciding this case. The learned trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit mainly on the ground that the books of account on which the plaintiffs mainly relied were not regularly kept in the course of business and accordingly no reliance can be placed on them.
( 2 ) THE entry in Jama Bahi dated February 29, 1952 in Hindi as translated in
English supplied by the party is this : jama Bahi Page 4. Rs. 5,318-15-0 Credited in the khata relating to Groundnut oil. Month of Falgun right fortnight 4th. 29-2-52. Rs. 5,318-15-0 In the name of Subhakarantulsi-ram Month o falgun, bright fortnight 4th. 29-2-52, Sales tax No. 3694. Khata (Ledger) page No. 14. Rs. 5,318-15-9 200 tins of groundnut oil 88 Mds, 241/2 srs. Less 5 mds. tor the tins. Net weight 63 mds. 241/2 seers Price Rs. 83/- per md. Total Price. . . Rs. 5,279-13-3 price of empty tins. . . Rs. 37-9-0 for Gosala. . . Rs. 1-10-6 grand Total. . . Rs. 5,818-15-9
The corresponding entry in the ledger in Hindi as translated in English (supply by the party) read thus:
"ledger page 14. Subhakuran Tulsiram account. Rs. 5,318-15-9 jama page 7 Rs. 5,318. 15-9 Jama page 4 carried over month of Falgun to new bright Fortnight book. 4th 29-2-52" rs. 5,318-15-9 rs. 5,318-15-9.
( 3 ) THE plaintiffs' case is that these entries in the books of account were regularly kept in the course of business. In support of their case they examined their
accountant P. W. 1 and their weighman P. W. 6. One of the plaintiffs being plaintiff no. 2 was also examined as P. W. 4. The accountant P. W. 1 said that defendant no. 2 Tulsiram took on credit 200 tins of groundnut oil from the plaintiffs and that the same were delivered to him; he (P. W. 1) was present at the time of the said transaction, that he got the tins weighed; it was noted in the Account book (Zama bahi) which is kept in due and regular course of business. The witness also said that the Khata is in his handwriting and that the entry in Jama Bahi Ext. 1 is in his handwriting. The witness further said that the corresponding entry in the Ledger is also in his handwriting and the Ledger is also kept in due and regular course of business. The evidence of the other witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs is also to the same effect.
( 4 ) THE plaintiffs' case as pleaded in paragraph 3 of the plaint is that for giving delivery or groundnut oil to M/s. Raghunath Hargobind of Station Dock Yards, cuttack the then Commission Agents of the defendants' firm, the defendants were in need of 200 tins of groundnut oil and so on 29-2-52 the defendants' firm took groundnut oil on credit from the plaintiffs' firm valued at Rs. 5,318-15-9. In support of this the plaintiffs relied on an entry in the defendants' Account Book Ext. AA. "dr. Raghunath Hargobind Dr. 497 tins g. N. oil kept (Jima) for sale on commission 29-2-52. " the plaintiffs' case is that this is a piece of corroborative evidence of their having supplied 200 tins of groundnut oil on February 29, 1952.
( 5 ) APART from the entries in the plaintiffs' Jama Bahi and the Ledger and the evidence of their Accountant and plaintiff No. 2 there is no receipt nor any writing given by the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
