Excess payment made towards a balance struck can be used as corroborative evidence of the balance brought forward from the previous year maintained in a khata kept in the regular course of business.

JUDGEMENT :- Plaintiffs constitute a joint family. Defdts. nos. 2 to 4 are the sons of defdt. no. 1. They constitute a joint family of which, defdt no. 1 is the Karta. Plaintiffs' case is that the defdts had a grocery shop and used to purchase articles on credit from the joint family firm of the plaintiffs' father and uncle and used to make payments. Defendants' liability was to the tune of Rs. 2,236-59 upto the end of the year 1958. Defendants took articles on credit to the tune of Rs. 1,824-66 from 3-1-59 to 9-6-59 and made payments of Rs. 2,55-00 between 3-1-59 and 12-8-59. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 1,693-00 inclusive of interest on the basis of khata account. An account was given in the Schedule of the plaint stating therein the dates when articles on credit were taken and when payments were made. Defendants case is that defendant no. 1 had a small grocery shop and had transactions with the joint family firm consisting of Arjun Sahu, father of plaintiff no. 1 and Kunja Sahu, father of plaintiff no. 2 from 1948 onwards. All the dues have been paid up and there was no outstanding liability. Defendants nos. 2 to 4 have no connection with that shop. Further pleas were also taken that the suit was not maintainable on account of non-joinder of necessary parties and non-registration of the firm under the Indian Partnership Act.

2. The learned Munsiff dismissed the suit holding that the amount of Rs. 2,236.59 shown as balance dues of the year 1958 had not been satisfactorily proved. The learned Lower appellate court rejected the technical objections on the ground of non-Joinder of parties and non-maintainability of the suit under Sec. 69 of the Partnership Act.

It decreed the plaintiff suit holding that plaintiffs satisfactorily established that there were arrear dues in respect of the transactions of the year 1958, Defendants have filed the second appeal.

3. The only contention advanced by Mr. Sahu is that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that there was a balance of Rs. 2,236-59 p. in respect of credit transactions ending with the year 1958. To appreciate this contention some detailed facts are to be noticed. The accounts furnished by the plaintiffs in the schedule attached to the plaint may be extracted -

1959

1. Brought forward from the year 1958 ... Rs. 2,236.59

2. 3-1-59 Goods taken on credit ... Rs. 535.93

Total ... Rs. 2,772.52

3. 3-1- 59 paid .... ... Rs. 425.00

Balance ... Rs. 2,347.52

4. 19-2-59 Goods taken on credit ... Rs. 549.78

Total ... Rs. 2,897.30

5. 19-2-59 paid ..

Rs. 470.00

... Rs. 2,427.30

6. 6-3-59 paid ... ... ... Rs. 200.00

Balance ... Rs. 2,227.30

7. 8-5-59 paid ... ... ... Rs. 949.00

Balance ... Rs. 1,278.30

8. 9-6-59 Goods taken on credit ... Rs. 738.95

Total ... Rs. 2,017.25

9. 9-6-59 paid ... ... ... Rs. 371.00

Balance ... Rs. 1,646.25

10. 12.8.59 paid ... ... ... Rs. 40.00

Balance ... Rs. 1,606.25

Balance

4. Mr. Sahu did not rightly assail the finding of the learned lower appellate court that the accounts of the plaintiffs for the year 1959 excepting the item of the balance brought forward from the year 1958 have been satisfactorily proved. The finding of the learned lower appellate court is based on the accounts, the entries in the credit sale (Ext. 3 series), the credit memos (Ext. 2 series) and the evidence of P.W. 1 (Plaintiff no. 1).

5. Section 34 of the Evidence Act enacts that entries in books of accounts regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the court has to enquire, but such statement shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. The entries in the books of accounts (Ext. 3 series) have been regularly kept in the course of business. P.W. 1 deposed that in his presence the articles mentioned in those entries were given on credit to the defendants. He also proves the payments made on various dates. If the