Heard

Shri

B.N.Prakash,

learned

advocate

for

appellants and Shri P.N.Harish, learned advocate for

caveator/respondent.

3

2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be

referred as per their status in the trial Court.

3. Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants

seeking recovery of Rs.38,62,114/- with 24% interest per

annum, contending inter alia that plaintiff is a registered

partnership firm; that First defendant is the wife of one

late Shri C.H.Nagesh and Defendants No.2 & 3 are his her

sons. That Shri Nagesh was a Class-I Contractor. He

was having credit transaction with the plaintiff-firm and

used to purchase cement on credit basis through tax

invoices. Shri Nagesh had issued three post-dated

cheques bearing No.155121, 155122 and 155123, drawn

on

State

Bank

of

Mysore,

Vinobanagara

Branch,

Shivamogga, for Rs.5,00,000/- each, dated 06.01.2017,

07.01.2017 and 08.01.2017 respectively. Plaintiff was

unable to encash the said cheques due to death of Nagesh.

Defendants have inherited the properties left behind by

deceased Nagesh. Therefore, they are liable to make the

payment.

4

4.

Defendants resisted the suit by denying plaint

averments except admitting the statement made in para 9

of the plaint that notice was issued to first defendant.

5.

Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has

framed the following questions:

1)

Whether the plaintiff proves that the

deceased C.H.Nagesh used to purchase the

cement on credit basis and used to pay the

amount into his credit account maintained by the

plaintiff firm?

2)

Whether the plaintiff proves that the

deceased is due for a sum of Rs.38,56,864/- as

on 31.01.2017, as per the statement of account

maintained by the firm during its regular course

of business?

3)

Whether the plaintiff firm is entitled for

recovery of suit claim with interest as claimed?

4) What order or decree?

5

6.

On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 Shri

K.C.Nataraj Bhagwath has been examined and exhibits P1

to P50 have been marked. On behalf of defendants, D.W.1

Smt.Nalini has been examined and no documents have

been marked.

7.

On consideration of material on record, the

trial Court has decreed the suit with costs and directed the

defendants No.1 to 3 to pay Rs.17,40,700/- with interest

at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till its

realisation

and

further

directed

that

a

sum

of

Rs.15,12,201/- by way of cheque No.515044 dated

23.06.2015 paid by the Garnishee, which was kept in

deposit, shall be adjusted towards decreetal amount.

8.

Shri B.N.Prakash, learned advocate for the

appellants-defendants urged three grounds:

•

Firstly that the trial Court has placed reliance

on

E-sugama

documents

issued

by

the

Commercial Tax Department. They were not

accompanied with the Certificate as required

6

under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1972 (for short 'the Evidence Act').

Therefore, said documents could not have

been considered;

•

Secondly, that the statement of accounts

furnished by the plaintiff shows that there is

a liability of Rs.35 Lakhs based on vouchers

and said vouchers were not produced before

the Court; and

•

that the tax invoices and statement of

accounts do not tally.

9. In support of his contention, Shri B.N.Prakash has

placed reliance on the judgment in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar

Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others¹ wherein the

Apex Court has held that any electronic document

produced in Court requires to be accompanied with the

certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.

1 (2020)7 SCC 1

7

10. Shri P.N.Harish, learned advocate for the

respondent submitted that in discharge of the debt,

late Nagesh had issued three cheques cumulatively for

Rs.15 lakhs. The remaining amount in excess of

Rs.15 lakhs is not covered by any Negotiable Instruments.

Late Nagesh had a running account with the plaintiff firm.

E-sugama documents are issued by the Government of

Karnataka

which

prove

the

movement

of

goods.

Therefore, finding recorded by the tria