• Bahi - Undoutedly as per Section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872, entries in account books regularly kept in course of business are relevant, but are not by themselves sufficient to charge any person with liability - Unless it qualifies to be a `bond' or a `negotiable instrument', bahi entry/account book cannot form the sole basis of action of recovery - Mere entries in account books are not sufficient to charge any person with liability when same are not corroborated - It has also been rightly recorded that no previous balance was confirmed - Plaintiff-cum did not produce its `bahi' entries at the time of filing the suit - Suit dismissed - Order upheld. (175) P.L.R.
  • Bahi - Where the plaintiff sues and base his case on an entry in the accounts book in his possession then the plaintiff shall produce the book of accounts at the time of filing of the plaint together with a copy of entry on which he relies - In the case in hand the original bahi was never produced at the time of filing of the plaint - The photocopy of the bahi was exhibited in the statement - There was no witness to the transaction entry - Mere proof of signatures can not be proof of execution of a document - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 7, Rule 17 - Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) S. 34. (178) P.L.R.
  • Bahi entry - A entry to be admissible in evidence under Section 34 of the Evidence Act, must be shown to be in a book, that book must be a book of accounts and that account must be one regularly kept in the course of business - The term book may properly be taken to signify ordinarily a collection of sheets of paper bound together with the intention that such binding shall be permanent and the papers used collectively in one volume - A book which merely contains entries of items of which no account is made at any time, is not a book of account for the purpose of Section  34 - Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) - Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872). (178) P.L.R.
  • Bahi Khatas - Commission Agents, who make the payments, always obtain the receipts - Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act leaves no manner of doubt that the books of accounts are maintained in the course of regular business - The plaintiff-respondent, however, has proved on record the Bahi Khatas - Even the account statement produced by the appellant-defendant has nullified the defence as it does not bear the signature of any authorised person, much less of the plaintiff - Evidence Act 1872 (1 of 1872) S. 34. (180) P.L.R. 


Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.