The standard of proof required by law to prove a case, as defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act, is crucial in determining the sufficiency of evidence in a legal dispute.

Padhye, J—This revision application arises out of a suit by the applicant (hereinafter called plaintiff) against the non-applicant (hereinafter called defendant), which was dismissed by the third Subordinate Judge, First Class, Nagpur, exercising powers under the Small Cause Courts Act.

2. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant, who was not a member of the Nagpur Chamber of Commerce, desired to enter into forward delivery contracts in yarn. As the rules of the Nagpur Chamber of Commerce permit such dealings only between its members, the defendant had to enter into an agreement with the plaintiff (who is the member of the Nagpur Chamber of Commerce) whereunder the plaintiff in consideration of receiving from the defendant adat, commission and interest undertook to act as defendant's kachha adtya (commission agent). Under the system in vogue in the local market a kachha adtya places himself in a position of an agent for an undisclosed principal in relation to the opposite party with whom forward delivery contracts are entered into for the constituent (such as the defendant was in this case), and renders himself liable to the opposite party for payment of the amounts found due on those transactions. The system of kachhi adat in vogue in Bombay, and which is not in any way different from the one in vogue at Nagpur, is explained in Fakirchand Lalchand v. Doolub Govindji,1905 7 BLR 213 and Mukund Chand v. Sobhagmal Gianmal, 1925 AIR(Bom) 79. In the appeal from the latter case their Lordships of the Privy Council in Sobhagmal Gianmal v. Mukundchand Balia, 1926 AIR(PC) 119 described the system of kachhi adat in the following words:

When a Katcha Adatia enters into transactions under instructions from and on behalf of his up-country constituent with a third party in Bombay, he makes privity of contract between the third party and the constituent, so that each becomes liable to the other but also he renders himself responsible on the contract to the third party.

3. According to the plaintiff, the defendant entered into forward delivery contracts for the purchase and sale of 15 bales of 12 Nag Chhap yarn through the plaintiff's adat. These transactions were settled on the agreed date of delivery, that is 31st March 1943 and resulted in a loss of Rs. 462-8-0. The plaintiff, as the defendant's adtya, had to pay this amount to the third party and he naturally debited the same to the defendant. The plaintiff now claims all this amount together with adat, interest etc, the total amount claimed being Rs. 520.

4. The defendant's defence is one of wholesale denial. According to him he did not know the plaintiff, never entered into any agreement of kachhi adat and never entered into any forward delivery contract. He claimed the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit with compensatory costs being awarded against the plaintiff on the ground the suit was wholly false.

5. I infer from the judgment of the learned Judge of the lower Court that he did not accept the defence of the defendant and did not also believe the evidence of the defendant as D.W. 1. If the defence was believed then the learned Judge had no other alternative but to dismiss the plaintiff's suit on a positive finding that it was false to the knowledge of the plaintiff, and in that event, he would have awarded compensatory costs against the plaintiff.

6. In support of his claim the plaintiff filed along with the plaint extracts of his account books, and the relevant entries from the nond book were duly proved by the writer of those entries. The plaintiff examined P.W. 1 who deposed that he managed forward delivery business of the plaintiff and made entries in the account books relating to those transactions which took place in his presence. I do not find anything in the judgment of the learned Judge indicating that he in any way suspected the genuineness or the regularity of the plaintiff's account books. I do not also find anything to show that the learned Judge disbelieved P.W. 1.

7