AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.-This is a civil revision petition filed under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964, against the judgment and decree dated 22-11-1997 passed by Sri C.G. Hungund, Civil Judge, Chickmagalur, in S.C. No. 334 of 1994, whereby the Trial Court decreed the plaintiff''s claim in part to the extent of Rs. 8,127/- with interest at the rate of 24.75% p.a. from 28-7-1992 on periodical balance till 17-10-1992 and on the decretal sum of Rs. 8,127/- from 17-10-1992 till the date of suit with proportionate costs. The Trial Court also decreed the future interest at the rate of 24.75% on the decretal sum from the date of suit till the date of realisation. The Trial Court dismissed the rest of the claim of the plaintiff-revision petitioner.
The facts of the case in Nut''shell are:
That the plaintiff-revision petitioner has filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 19,401.28 as due against the defendant-respondent on the date of the suit. The plaintiff-revision petitioner alleged that on 3-12-1991, the defendant executed ''Bobcard'' application for facility of monthly withdrawals of Rs. 5,000/- subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the application and agreed to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24.75% p.a. compounded quarterly. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had also further agreed to pay the interest at the varied rate, but according to the plaintiff the defendant defaulted to repay the loan as agreed and did not repay the balance in spite of legal notice dated 15-3-1994 so the suit.
The defendant-respondent appeared and filed the written statement admitting the fact that he availed ''Bobcard'' facility for monthly withdrawal of Rs. 5,000/- as granted by the plaintiff-Bank subject to the terms and conditions of the said application. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the entries made in the account extract produced along with the plaint are misleading and incorrect. The defendant further stated that the entry to the effect that he had withdrawn Rs. 5,000/- shown in the account extract dated 13-10-1992 and the said entry is wrong. The defendant further alleged that in spite of repeated requests the plaintiff-Bank did not furnish the true and correct statement of accounts. The defendant asserted that the outstanding balance shown in the statement of accounts as Rs. 18,921/- or Rs. 19,401 as stated in paragraph 6 of the plaint are not admitted and are not correct. No doubt, in the written statement, it is stated that the Court below has been pleased to pass the decree for the amount legally due.
The Trial Court framed the following points for consideration:
(1) Whether the plaintiff-Bank proves the outstanding balance of Rs. 19,401-28 ps. on the date of suit?
(2) What order?
During the trial, the plaintiff examined its Manager Sri M.V. Sridhar as P.W. 1 and filed Exs. P. 1 to P. 6. The defendant examined himself as D.W. 1 and filed the notice as Ext. D. 1.
After considering the evidence placed on record, the Trial Court found that the plaintiff has been entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 8,127/- as legally recoverable amount or sum. According to the Trial Court, the outstanding balance till 17-10-1992 was Rs. 8,017/- , later the debit entries amount for a sum of Rs. 60/- + Rs. 50/- = Rs. 110/-. So the outstanding liability of the defendant was to the tune of Rs. 8,017/- + Rs. 110/- = Rs. 8127.00 which was recoverable from the defendant-respondent by the plaintiff-Bank. The Trial Court also found as per the agreement, the defendant was liable to pay interest at the rate of 24.75%.
Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 22-11-1997 of the Civil Judge, Chickmagalur, whereby the learned Trial Judge dismissed the plaintiff''s claim to the extent of about Rs. 11,000/- and odd the plaintiff-Bank had come up in revision before this Court under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act.
I have heard Sri Y.V. Parthasarathy, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri D.C. Jagadish, learned Counsel for the respondent.
The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the Trial Court has wrongly mentioned that the statement of accounts has not been made part of the plaint and he invited my attention to the plaint allegations. He submitted that the certified copy of the Bank account has been sufficiently good evidence to be relied upon for decreeing the plaintiff-revision petitioner''s suit, as Ext. P. 2 is the certified copy of the ledger account relating to the amount advanced to the defendant and the payments made by the defendant. Therefore, the Trial Court should have decreed the plaintiff-revision petitioner''s suit for the sum claimed to the tune of Rs. 19,401.28 ps or at least for Rs. 18,921/- with interest at the rate of 24.75%. The learned Counsel further submitted that there is admission of the defendant vide Ext. P. 6 and also in the cross-examination of D.W. 1 that Ext. P. 6 as well as the statement of D.W. 1 clearly reveals that the defendant admits his liability for the repayment to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- towards the dues. On the basis of the said evidence, the suit of the plaintiff should have been decreed.
The above contentions of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner have hotly been contested by the learned Counsel for the respondent.
The learned Counsel submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the Bankers'' Book Evidence Act, 1891, read with Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Bankers'' account book entries even if produced in original or certified copy that by itself is not sufficient to fasten charge or to fasten financial liability on the defendant-respondent. He submitted that the statement that has been referred as admission of liability to the extent of Rs. 18,000/- or Rs. 19,000/- can''t be read as evidence. It is not clear and specific that admission of the liability alleged in the plaint that statement was only to avoid litigation and if that statement is taken as admission of the withdrawal of the amount, then what the Bank states that the defendant has paid to the tune of Rs. 17,000/- , then it could be said that the defendant was liable to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- only. The learned Counsel submitted that the said statement can''t be read as admission of the amount due against the defendant.
I have applied my mind to the contentions advanced by the learned Counsels appearing for the parties.
As regards Ext. P. 2 the statement or the certified copy of the accounts extract of the defendant-respondent will be controlled by Section 4 of the Bankers'' Books Evidence Act, 1891 wherein it has been indicated that under provisions of the Indian Bankers'' Books Evidence Act, 1879 even the copy or copies of the entries in the Bankers Books have been made receivable in evidence under certain conditions and certain limits. Section 4 of the Bankers'' Books Evidence Act, 1891 reads as under:
"4. Mode of proof of entries in bankers books.-Subject to the provisions of this Act, a certified copy of any entry in a bankers'' book shall in all legal proceedings be received as prima facie evidence of the existence of such entry, and shall be admitted as evidence of the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded in every case where, and to the same extent as, the original entry itself is now by law admissible, but not further or otherwise".
In Section 4 of the Bankers'' Books Evidence Act, 1891, it clearly indicates that a certified copy of any entry in a banker''s book shall in all legal proceedings be received as prima facie evidence of the transaction recorded in the Bankers'' books, as well as of the existence of such entries. It means instead of the Bank being required to produce the original ledger extract, the Banks have been conferred the privilege to produce the certified copy of entries recorded in the Bankers Books and the law dictates that the certified copy of the entries shall be admissible as evidence of the matter or transaction or account recorded therein. It further puts a rider that it shall be admissible to the extent, the original entry itself is admissible under the law of evidence i.e., under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is necessary, at this juncture, to refer to the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:
"34. Entries in books of account when relevant.- Entries in books of account, regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant wherever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability".
@BODY-LSP = 11. The last part of the sentence clearly provides that to charge any person with liability, the entries in books of account shall not by itself be sufficient, instead the corroborative evidence would be needed to charge the liability. In other words, on the basis of the entries in the books of account read with the corroborative evidence, if any, lead may be taken to be sufficient to charge any person with liability, but mere entries in books of account by itself shall not be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. As mentioned earlier, Section 4 of the Bankers'' Books Evidence Act, 1891 per se provides that a certified copy of any entry in a banker''s book shall in all legal proceedings be admissible as evidence of matters and transaction of account recorded in that book, but the extent is limited by the expression to the same extent as original entry itself is now by law admissible, but not further or otherwise. Thus, a certified copy of the statement of any entry in a Bankers'' Books shall in all legal proceedings is admissible only with limited extent, even if the Bankers produce the original account books properly maintained etc., they may be proof of transaction. But, in view of the declaration of law under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, by the Parliament that entries in books of account shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability will apply with equal force to the certified copy of any entry in a bankers'' book when produced in the Court. When I so opine, I find support for my from the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandradhar Goswami v Gauhati Bank Limited, AIR 1967 SC 1058. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above report at page 1060 observed as under:
"It is clear from a bare perusal of the section that no person can be charged with liability merely on the basis of entries in books of account, even where such books of account are kept in the regular course of business. There has to be further evidence to prove payment of the money which may appear in the books of account in order that a person may be charged with liability thereunder except where the person to be charged accepts the correctness of the books of accounts and does not challenge them".
The same view has been expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Corporation Bank, Bangalore v B. Mohandas Baliga, 1993(1) Kar. L.J. 308 (DB). In paragraph 9 of the said judgment, the Division Bench has in clear terms laid down at page 211 as under:
"It will be clear that Section 4 gives a special privilege to banks and allows certified copies of their accounts to be produced by them and those certified copies become prima facie evidence of the existence of the original entries in the accounts and are admitted as evidence of matter, transactions and accounts therein, but such admission is only where and to the same event as the original entry itself would be admissible by law and not further or otherwise. Original entries alone under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, would not be sufficient to charge any person with liability and as such copies produced under Section 4 of the Bankers'' Book Evidence Act, obviously cannot charge any person with liability. Therefore, where the entries are not admitted, it is the duty of the Bank if it relies on such entries to charge any person with liability to produce evidence in support of the entries to show that the money was advanced as indicated therein and thereafter the entries would be of use as corroborative evidence".
On behalf of the revision petitioner, no doubt, reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v Yumnam Gouramani Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1644, that it is distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the following observations contained in paragraph 5 of the report will reveal that "it is thus obvious that apart from the entries of the books of account there was ample evidence on the record to corroborate the said entries. P.Ws. 5, 7 and 8 have in their detailed depositions corroborated the entries in the books of account. Even otherwise, issues 3, 4 and 7 were not contested by the respondent-defendant. In his written statement, he admitted that he took the alleged loans from the Manipur State Bank which merged in the State Bank of India........." The Trial Court on the basis of the entries in the books of accounts and other corroborative evidence reached the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 9,962.91 Ps with interest at the rate of 71/2 per cent per annum from September 1960 till the recovery of the said amount.
Thus, the case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is of no help to him and distinguishable. The statement referred to by the plaintiff-revision petitioner contained in Ext. P. 6 and in deposition can''t be said to be the admission of alleged transaction and the extent of liability as claimed by the plaintiff-revision petitioner. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the Trial Court was justified in decreeing a sum of Rs. 8,127/- only and not in relying on Ext. P. 2 for decreeing the entire amount or sum. In my opinion, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court cannot be said to be not in accordance with law. In my opinion, the civil revision petition has got no merits and is hereby dismissed. No costs.