Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1470 (PNJ)

Inderjeet Singh v. Jai Kishan Dass Karori Mal

2017-07-19

ANIL KSHETARPAL

body2017
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. 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 lending of money as also deposit of money on the sale of crop. These bahi entries are not acknowledgment of that as mentioned in Article 1 of Schedule 1 of the Stamp Act. 10. Secondly, when these bahi entries were admitted in evidence, counsel for the defendants objected to only mode of proof. These bahi entries are not acknowledgment of that as mentioned in Article 1 of Schedule 1 of the Stamp Act. 10. Secondly, when these bahi entries were admitted in evidence, counsel for the defendants objected to only mode of proof. Counsel for the defendants did not object to its admissibility on account of non-affixation of proper stamp duty. In view of Section 36 of the Stamp Act, defendants-appellants now cannot be permitted to question the admissibility of bahi entries in evidence. 11. Last submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the courts below have taken adverse inference against the defendants on account of non-examination of handwriting and fingerprint expert comparing signatures of Jaspal Singh. I find substance in the argument advanced by counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has produced on file an order passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pehowa, dated 27.02.2012, wherein it is recorded that defendants had in fact moved an application for comparison of signatures of the plaintiff on a slip of paper Mark-A. The aforesaid application was allowed. Plaintiff appeared and gave his specimen handwriting. However, defendants did not produce the report of handwriting and fingerprint expert. However, looking the facts and the evidence available on the file, I find that small error in the judgment with regard to adverse inference would not vitiate the detailed judgments passed by the courts below. There is sufficient evidence available on the file to prove the claim made by the plaintiff for recovery of the amount. 12. Therefore, finding no merits in the present appeal, the same is dismissed.