Entries in account books 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.

JUDGMENT :

N.K. Das, J. - Defendant No. 1 has filed this revision against a judgment of reversal in a suit for recovery of money on khata account relating to sale transaction.

2. Originally, there were four Defendants including the present Petitioner. Plaintiff is a registered partnership firm dealing in grocery articles and the Defendants constitute a joint Hindu family, of which Defendant No. 4 is the Karta. Defendants were carrying on business in grocery articles in the name of Defendant No. 1 and for such business used to purchase grocery articles on credit from the Plaintiff-firm in his name and used to make payments from time to time from 1968 to 1969. Defendant No. 1 brought articles from the Plaintiff firm on credit worth Rs. 3868.15 including previous balance of Rs. 2,805.91 from 14-11-1970 to 5-12-1970 and made payments of Rs. 3,403.00 between 30-10-1970 and to 3-4-1971. Thus, a sum of Rs. 465.15 remained outstanding against Defendant No. 1. The other Defendants have been benefited by such transaction. The Plaintiff has entered the present transaction in his accounts as well as the payments made by Defendant No. 1 and the accounts are maintained in regular course of business. The Defendants did not clear up balance in spite of repeated demands including a demand by pleader's notice, in response to which Defendant No. 1 gave reply denying the liability for the claim. The Plaintiff has claimed Rs. 62.64 as compensatory interest with effect from the last date of credit transaction. The total due claimed against the Defendants is Rs. 527.79 paise.

As the appellate Court has decreed the suit only against Defendant No. 1, there is no necessity to refer to the contents of the written statement of the other Defendants. Defendant No. 1 in his written statement has admitted the transactions proved by the Plaintiff firm but has denied to have purchased any article on credit worth Rs. 570/- from the Plaintiff on 12-9-1970 and specifically denies the concerned credit dated 12.9.1970. He has further taken the stand that he made excess payment to the Plaintiff to a tune of Rs. 104.54 and he came to know about such excess payment at the time of Kalipuja. As he demanded refund of the said excess amount and stopped business with the Plaintiff, this suit has been foisted with false allegations. He has also claimed that the Plaintiff is not entitled to compensatory interest.

3. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the Plaintiff has not been able to prove the transactions. The appellate Court has decreed the suit basing on the entry Ext. 4 which has been corroborated by the oral evidence of the Plaintiff and by the entry in the sales-tax register Ext. 3. He has further held that Defendant No. 1 actually took kerosene oil on credit worth Rs. 50/- as alleged by the Plaintiff.

4. An other transactions appearing in the khata account Ext. 4 has been admitted by the Defendant No. 1 excepting the entry dated 12-9-1970 for Rs. 570/-. This relates to the transaction in respect of kerosene oil said to have been sold by the Plaintiff to Defendant No. 1. The appellate Court has not accepted the credit memo Ext. 6 and the sales-tax register Ext. 6. But he has accepted the entry in the sales-tax register Ext. 3. It is well settled that in a suit of the present nature, the Plaintiff cannot get a decree simply on the entry Ext. 4. This entry should be corroborated by some evidence. In Chandradhar Goswami and Others Vs. The Gauhati Bank Ltd. it has been held that the retires in the books of account kept in course of business shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. There has to be further evidence to prove payment of the money which may appear in the books of account in order that a person may be charged with liability there under, except where the person to be charged accepts the correctness of the books of account and does not challenge them Such a question arose before this Court in Kelu Sahu v. Hadibandhu Sahu