LexCHANDRADHAR GOSWAMI & ORS. versus THE GAUHATL BANK LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
898
CHAND RAD HAR GOSWAMI
& ORS.
l'.
THE GAU HA Tl BANK LTD.
October,
I~. 1966
[K. l\. WANCHOO AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.)
Indian Evid'11rt Act, 1872, s. 7'1r-Entries L• bank's books of account
shoM>·ing payment of loan to cons1itutnt-Cer1ified copies of .such en1rie.1
11·/Jether b ..... 1he111scl\•es e~·idcnce of such foa11-EOec:1 of s. 4 of Bankers'
Books Evidence Act (18 of 1891).
The app1..~l!ants through 1heir karta
had an open mutual and current
account with the respondent bank.
They borrov.·ed from the bank and
also paid mon:cs into it. On ~farch I, 1947 a sum of Rs. 15,95617 waa
due to the bank from the appellaalS,
lo order to pay off that amount
a mortgage d<ed was executed by the appcllanlS in farnur of the bank.
Under that deed further amounts up to a limit of Rs. 16,000 could be
advanced to !he nppe1J:int9 :tg;1inst rhe
~ci:urity
n1cnl1oned
1herein.
r\ccording to !he b:ink, under 1hc s;1id p1 O\ i-.;'.0n of the deed a further
sum of Rs. 10.000 \\'ilS ad\'JnccJ to 1he :-ippl'llanls on ~larch 19. 1947.
On April 9. 1953 the bank filed a suit for the recovery of sums due
lo it from the appellants and the suit was claimed to be wi1hin the period
of limir:ition on the :illecati\)n that on !\ovember 24. 19~9. tht' appellants
had repaid a sum of R-,. I 00 to the bank.
The appellants denied that
they had borrowed Rs. 10,000 as alleged or tha1 they had rep>id Rs. 100.
The trial court decreed the suit of the bank and the High Court upheld
1hc decree. The appellants then came to this Court by special leave. Tho
c.ucstioos that fell for determination were (i) whether by producing
a copy of the entry relating to the loan of Rs. 10,000 in these account
b.1oks the bank
had proved
the s:iid
loan, (ii) 'vhcther the suit
~·a'.\
\\·ithio time.
HELD: (i) In view of s. 34 of the Evidence Act the appellants could
r.ot be saddled \vith liahilitv for the sum of Rs. 10.000 said to have been
;1J\';1nccd to them on f\.1:trCh 19. 19.i 7
on the basis of :i mere entry in
the account.
Section 34 says that such entry alone !'hall not be suffi·
c · ent evidence and so some independent e,·idence had to be gi,·r,n by
1!1c rank to sho'v that this sum '"'as :td\'anced. Such evidence not having
h·cn gi\"en the claim could not be upheld.
[90J CJ
(ii\ Section 4 of the D.mkers' Books Evic!<?nce Act (IS of 1891)
.:ertainly {!ives a special privilege to banks and allo"'S certified cop!es of
their accounts to be produced by them and lhose certified copies become
prlrna facit• c'idence of 1he e:\istence of the original entries in the
:u:counts a1hl are admitlcd :is
c\'idcncc of
rn:llfcr~. tr:insactinns.
and
accounts therein.
But such :h~-n1ission is onlv \\"here and to the extent
as the ori~in:il entry itself '''Oll!d he admissible bv Ja,v and not funher
or othenvfse.
Orielnat entries atone under s.
~4· of the Evidence Act
,,.0tdd n01 he suffiC:icnt t0 ch:irc<" an,· person ''"ith li:lhi!it\' and as such,
copies produced under s. 4 of· the Bankers' Books Evidence Act couJd
nl't ch:trf:c any person \Vith liahitity.
[902 C·E)
(iii) The suit \\'as clearly "·ithin tin1e inrof:ir il!'it the liahititv for sale
under the rnorlf!:lf!c deed ''"·'' concerned as it "':ls filed \Vithin 12 vear.1 of
the execution of the rnorll!al!e :i~ altov.·ed bv Art. 138 ot the limitation
Act of 1908.
[•>03 Gl
- -
·
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
c. GOSWAMI v. GAUHATI BANK (Wanchoo, J.)
899
As to the personal liability under the deed tlrat was bevond time
as the suit was filed more than six years after the execution of the
mortgage allowed by Art. 116.
The entry of the payment of Rs. 100
in the accounts also did. not help the bank in this behalf.
That entry
was of no value under s. 19 or s. 20 of the Limitation Act for neither
a writing signed by the appellants nor an acknowledgcn1ent of payment
in the hand,vriting of the appellants or in a writing signed by them
had been proved.
Nor did Art. 85 help the bank in fixing personal
responsibility on the appellants as the time of three years allowed by
that Article had ended before the filing of the suit.
[903 G-H] .
C!VIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 733 of 1964.
Appeal hy special leave from the judgment and decree dated
August I, 1960 of the Assam and Nagabnd High Court in F.A.
No. 33 of 1955.
Naunit Lal, for the appellants.
R. Gopalakrislma11, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
WancExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.