EVIDENCE AND CONTRACT LAW

S. 34 of evidence is quite clear

"Entries in books of account, regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever 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.

Illustration



A sues B for Rs.1,000, and shows entries in his account books showing B to be indebted to him to this amount. The entries are relevant but are not sufficient, without other evidence, to prove the debt."

I agree with Jayesh bai. But there is evidence for the encashment of cheque to opposite party. That prooves the payment. A corresponding entry in payers personal diary. That corroborates the payment again. Subsequent entry of interest etc also corroborates the non-payment. But this diary won't cpome under S.34. But the case can be filed from another angle as satted above. To conclude dear Raghavendra its a 65-35% chance case. 65 on your side i hope.

Thanks Suresh for concurring views! However I had limited my comment to s.34 only! On the facts , I agree with you.

You have got a very poor case.Without any express contract no interest can be charged.So far entries of the diary are concerned,Mr.Suresh is quite clear on this point.

RESPECTED SIR,

SEC 34  OF EVIDENCE ACT SPEEKS ABOUT RELAVENCY , THAT IS ENTRY IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHEN RELAVENT .I WANT TO KNOW THAT CAN THIS CASE BE WON FIRSTLY BY TAKING ENTRY PASSED IN DIARY AS SECONDRY EVIDENDE, AND SECONDALY CHEQUE CLEARED IN PASS BOOK AS PRIMARY EVIDENCE  . OR SINCE NO CONSIDERATION HAS PASSED BETWEEN Z'SON TO B'SON ,CAN Z' SON ABSOLVE FROM THE LIABILITY . OR SINCE  Z'SON HAS MADE  PART PAYMENT THOUGH CHEQUE TO B'SON THE CONCEPT OR ESPOPPLE APPLY 

RESPECTED SIR

SEC 34  OF EVIDENCE ACT SPEEKS ABOUT RELAVENCY , THAT IS ENTRY IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHEN RELAVENT .I WANT TO KNOW THAT CAN THIS CASE BE WON FIRSTLY BY TAKING ENTRY PASSED IN DIARY AS SECONDRY EVIDENDE, AND SECONDALY CHEQUE CLEARED IN PASS BOOK AS PRIMARY EVIDENCE  . OR SINCE NO CONSIDERATION HAS PASSED BETWEEN Z'SON TO B'SON ,CAN Z' SON ABSOLVE FROM THE LIABILITY . OR SINCE  Z'SON HAS MADE  PART PAYMENT THOUGH CHEQUE TO B'SON THE CONCEPT OR ESPOPPLE APPLY 

                                                  THANK YOU

Dear,

            Entries in perrsonal diary if in the handwritng of the 'z' is a relevent document in this transaction suppose a tenant is paying rent and landlord is not issuing rent receipt to him but rent accepted by him were endorsed in the diary of the tenant by the landlord can be relevent document of payment of rent in my view other circumtances and evidence proving transaction were made between the parties ,as such,diary is relevent document .

Please excuse typing mistake read 'B' instead of 'Z'