The admissibility and evidentiary value of 'bahi' entries under Section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and the requirement for corroborative evidence to charge a person with liability.

Paramjeet Singh, J.

This second appeal arises from a suit for recovery of Rs. 11,000/- filed by plaintiff-Dhup Singh on account of 'bahi' entries made by father of defendants' for taking a loan of Rs. 6,300/- which was decreed by the Court of first instance and appeal preferred by defendants no.1 to 3 has been accepted by the lower Appellate Court and judgment and decree of the Court of first instance have been set aside.

2. The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts relevant for disposal of this regular second appeal are that plaintiff-Dhup Singh approached the Court of first instance seeking a decree for recovery of Rs. 11,000/- on the allegations that on miti Jyesth Sudi 13, Samwat 2032, Rehamu alias Rama Nand, father of the defendants, borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,300/- from him and executed a 'bahi' entry in this regard after appending his signatures in Urdu script. Thereafter on miti Jyesth Sudi 13, Samwat 2035 corresponding to 19.06.1978, Rehamu @ Ramanand got his account settled with the plaintiff admitting that a sum of Rs. 8,100/- (' 6300/- as principal amount and Rs. 1800/- as interest) was due against him. Thereafter, three 'bahi' entries of Rs. 2,700/- each were executed by Rehamu @ Ramanand in favour of the plaintiff and he also agreed to pay interest @ 1% per mensem. Since Rehamu @ Ramanand died and defendants inherited his estate being his heirs, they are liable to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 11,000/- (principal amount as well as interest).

3. Upon notice, defendants no.1 to 3 put in appearance and filed written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint. It was pleaded that neither Rehamu had taken any loan from the plaintiff, nor executed any 'bahi' entry agreeing to pay three instalments of Rs. 2700/- each. It was, inter alia, pleaded that the suit was not within time, 'bahi' entries of the plaintiff were fabricated.

4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the Court of first instance framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the father of the defendants borrowed Rs. 6300/- from the plaintiff on miti jeth Sudhi, 13, Samwat 2032? OPP

2. Whether the defendants' father acknowledged his liability of Rs. 6300/- on 19.6.78 total amounting to Rs. 8100/-? OPP

3. Whether the father of the defendants agreed to pay Rs. 8100 in three instalments by way of entry on 19.6.78 each amounting to Rs. 2700/- in the bahi of the plaintiff and thumb marked in token of its correctness? OPP

4. Whether the defendant's father agreed to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 1% p.m. If so at what rate and to what effect? OPP

5. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

6. Whether the bahi entry dated 19.6.78 is fictitious and inadmissible in evidence due to material alteration? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff is a money lender. If so to what effect? OPD

8. Relief."

5. Parties were afforded opportunity to lead their evidence. After perusal of the evidence available on the file, the Court of first instance decreed the suit with costs and future interest @ Rs. 6% per annum, vide judgment and decree dated 02.11.1985. Feeling aggrieved, defendants no.1 and 3 preferred an appeal which has been allowed and judgment and decree of the Court of first instance have been set aside, vide judgment and decree dated 13.03.1986. Hence, this regular second appeal.

6. When the appeal was admitted, no substantial question of law was framed, however, during the pendency of this appeal, following substantial questions of law have been placed on record.

1. Whether the lower Appellate Court was legally justified in reversing the detailed and well considered issue wise judgment and decree of the trial Court without dealing with all the reasons given therein?

2. Whether the lower Appellate Court could dismiss the plaintiff-appellants suit for recovery when the defendant-respondents did not produce an iota of evidence to prove that the entries i.e. Ex.PW 7/A, Ex.PW 8/A, P