SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(P&H) 1542

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Inderjeet Singh and others - Appellants
Versus
M/s Jai Kishan Dass Karori Mal and another - Respondents
Regular Second Appeal No. 5763 of 2015
Decided On : 19-07-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. S.S. Momi

The sufficiency of corroborative evidence and the admissibility of account books without proper stamp duty were key legal principles established in the judgment.

Headnote:

Corroborative Evidence - Recovery Suit - The court found that the entries in the account books were duly corroborated by the plaintiff and the defendant, and therefore no further evidence was required. The court also held that the non-affixation of stamp duty on the account books did not affect their admissibility, and the defendants could not question it at a later stage. Additionally, the court noted that the failure to produce a report from a handwriting and fingerprint expert did not vitiate the judgments passed by the lower courts.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,50,000/- based on 'bahi' (account books) entries. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiff had proved the case, the defense set up by the defendants was not proved, and there was sufficient evidence available to prove the claim made by the plaintiff for recovery of the amount.

Issues: The issues involved the sufficiency of corroborative evidence, the requirement of stamp duty on account books, and the failure to produce a report from a handwriting and fingerprint expert.

Ratio Decidendi: The entries in the account books were duly corroborated by the plaintiff and the defendant, and therefore no further evidence was required. The non-affixation of stamp duty on the account books did not affect their admissibility, and the defendants could not question it at a later stage. The failure to produce a report from a handwriting and fingerprint expert did not vitiate the judgments passed by the lower courts.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court found no merits in the present appeal.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

C.M.No.14233-C of 2015

Allowed as prayed for.

RSA No.5763 of 2015

1. Defendants-appellants have filed the present appeal against concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below.

2. Plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,50,000/- on the basis of 'bahi' (account books) entries. It was noticed by the Courts that there are different entries with respect to lending of money in the regular books of account. All the entries are signed by defendant No.1 or his father.

3. In defence, defendants pleaded that their father Jaspal Singh never took any loan more than Rs.10,000/- at one time from the plaintiffs-firm. It was further denied by the defendants that Jaspal Singh cleared the accounts in November, 2006. It was denied that father of the defendants ever took advance of Rs.4,50,000/-. In evidence, the plaintiffs produced copies of the account books from Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. Plaintiffs also produced notice demanding the amount and reply sent on behalf of defendants. Plaintiff No.2 himself stepped into the witness box as PW1 and stated that the books of account are under his hand. Defendant no.1 appeared as DW1 and tendered notice, school certificate and postal receipt in evidence.

4. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on file recorded a finding that the plaintiff has been able to prove his case as the entries in the bahi (account books) maintained by commission agents have been proved by corroborative evidence of statement of plaintiff, who had stated that these bahi (account books) entries are in his hand. The learned trial Court decreed the suit for Rs.6,50,000/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the suit till actual payment.

5. Appeal filed by the defendants was ordered to be dismissed. The learned first appellate Court after re-appreciating the evidence available on the file recorded a finding that the plaintiff has proved his case and the defence set up by the defendants is not proved.

6. Counsel for the appellants has contended that (i) in the absence of any corroborative evidence of bahi entries (account books), the suit filed by the plaintiffs could not be decreed under Section 34 of the Evidence Act unless entries in the books of account are corroborated. Such entries in the accounts would not alone be sufficient to charge any person with the liability; (ii) learned counsel further argued that once regular course of transactions came to an end, the lending of money through bahi entry (account books) was not permissible. Entries were required to be stamped as per Article 1 of Schedule 1 of the Stamp Act; (iii) counsel has further argued that the courts below have taken a wrong adverse inference against the defendants as the defendants never filed any application or took photographs of signatures of Jaspal Singh for comparison.

7. I have heard counsel for the appellants at length and with his able assistance gone through the paper book, consisting of judgments passed by the courts below. I have also seen photocopy of the record showing bahi entries as provided by learned counsel for the appellants.

8. As far as requirement of corroborative evidence, which is the first argument of learned counsel for the appellants, I find that the bahi (account books) entries were duly corroborated by the plaintiff. Plaintiff stated on oath that bahi entries are under in his hand. Bahi entries are duly signed by the defendant and his deceased father. In my considered opinion, once the bahi entries, which is the books of account maintained in regular course have not been corroborated by the statement of author of those entries. No further evidence was required.

9. Second submission of learned counsel for the appellants is with respect to non-affixation of stamp as per Article 1 of Schedule 1 of the Stamp Act. The bahi (account books) are maintained by the commission agents, recording daily transactions. These are in the shape of day book where entries are made showing lendin



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top