Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K. Narasimhulu Naidu And Co. vs G. Subbarama Reddy on 18 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(6)ALD491, 2003(6)ALT118, II(2004)BC293
JUDGMENT C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. The plaintiff in O.S.731 of 1980 on the file of the- Court of III Additional District Munsif, Chittoor, is the appellant in this second appeal.
2. The case of the appellant is that the respondent promising to supply jaggery between 27-6-1977 and 27-6-1980 took an advance of Rs. 6,000/- from it and made some payments and by 27-6-1980 he was due to pay a principal amount of Rs. 3,000/-, and as per the trade custom and usage it is entitled to interest at 12 per cent per annum on the amount due to it, and hence the suit for recovery of Rs. 3,420/-with subsequent interest. The case of the respondent is that on 12-6-1974 he borrowed Rs. 5,000/- from one Duddu Ramaiah Chetty under promissory note, who transferred it to K. Narasimhulu Naidu, a partner in the appellant-firm, and having come to know that he is entitled to the benefit under A.P. Agricultural Indebtedness Relief Act (Act 7 of 1977) Ramaiah Chetty received Rs. 1,100/- from him and towards the said promissory note executed in favour of Duddu Ramaiah Chetty and got fresh entry made in the account book of the appellant as if Rs. 6,000/- was lent to him on 27-6-1977. He never supplied any jaggery to the appellant. Since he is entitled to the benefits of Act 7 of 1977 the suit is liable to be dismissed.
3. In support of the case of the appellant K, Narasimhulu Naidu, one of the partners of the appellant was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked. On his behalf respondent examined himself as D.W.1 and another witness as D.W.2 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-3. The trial Court held that the transaction between the parties is in connection with the supply of jaggery and so the appellant is entitled to a decree in its favour and accordingly decreed the suit. On appeal by the respondent, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chittoor allowed the appeal holding that the debt due to the appellant stood abated under Act 7 of 1977 and dismissed the suit. It also held that the entry in the day book marked as Ex.A-1 requires stamp duty and penalty. Aggrieved thereby this second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in the suit.
4. The point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to recover the suit amount from the respondent?
5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Lower Appellate Court was in error in holding that the respondent is entitled to the benefits of the Act 7 of 1977 when the transaction between the parties relates to supply of jaggery. It is his contention that the Lower Appellate Court erred in holding that Ex.A-1 cannot be taken into consideration as it was not duly stamped and erroneously reversed the well considered judgment of the Trial Court. Though served no representation on behalf of the respondent.
6. There is force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Lower Appellate Court erred in holding that Ex.A-1 entry in the account-book requires stamp and since it is not stamped, it cannot be taken into consideration. Ex.A-1 entry containing the signature of respondent only shows that Rs. 6,000/- was given to him. It is neither an agreement; nor a Promissory Note. Such an entry therefore, need not be stamped. It can be used in evidence to show that Rs. 6,000/- was given to the respondent by the appellant on 'the date of the entry. If the terms and conditions on which the amount was paid to the respondent are noted, depending on the terms and conditions, whether the entry requires stamp or not has to be decided. A simple entry in an account-book kept in the regular course of business, containing a debit entry for the amount given, containing the signature of that person does not require stamp.
7. Since Ex.A-1 containing the signature of respondent shows that the respondent received Rs. 6,000/- from the appellant, appellant can maintain a suit for recovery of that amount from the respondent. The case of the appellant is that since the amount of Rs. 6,000/- was given as advance to the respondent for supply of Jaggery the suit debt is not covered by Act 7 of 1977. So it is for the appellant to establish that the amount of Rs. 6,000/- was advanced for supply of Jaggery. Ex.A-1 does not show that the amount was given as advance for supply of any goods. The plaint also does not state that the amount of Rs. 6,000/- was given to the respondent for supply of jaggery. The bald allegation in the plaint is that during the course of Jaggery transaction between appellant and respondent, respondent has to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards principal to the appellant. Significantly, P.W.1 also did not state that the amount of Rs. 6,000/- was advanced to the respondent for supply of Jaggery. His evidence is that respondent, as per Ex.A-1 is due in a sum of Rs. 6,000/- to the appellant and that respondent paid Rs. 1,300/- on 4-7-1978 and Rs. 1,700/- on 4-5-1979 under Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-6 respectively.
8. Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-6 are entries in ledgers for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80. Entries in ledgers are secondary evidence because those entries would be made from the day book. Daybook is the primary evidence. It is the daybook that would be kept in the regular course of business and balance would be struck everyday in the daybook. Ledger entries can be made from the daybook on any day subsequently, without daybook, entries in ledger by themselves can have no value. For reasons best known to it appellant did not produce the daybooks containing the entries, which are the originals of Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-6. Therefore Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-6 have little evidentiary value.
9. Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-6 relied on by the appellant, in a way belie the contention of the appellant that the amount of Rs. 6,0007 -under Ex.A-1 was advanced to the respondent for supply of Jaggery and during the course of Jaggery dealing he owned Rs. 3,000/- principal. If the amount of Rs. 6,000/- was given to the respondent for supply of Jaggery and if respondent did supply Jaggery to the appellant, the entries in Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-6 should relate to the value of the Jaggery supplied by the respondent to the appellant. But Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-6 read as if cash of Rs. 1,300/- and Rs. 1,700/- was paid on those dates. So it is clear that the cash paid to the respondent under Ex.A-1 was not for supply of Jaggery but was a hand loan.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is not necessary to go into the question whether the case set up by the respondent in his written statement is true or not because the only ground on which the appellant is seeking recovery of the amount is that it was advanced to the respondent for supply Jaggery. It impliedly means that though the respondent is a small farmer within the meaning of Act 7 of 1977, he is not entitled to the benefits of that Act because the sum due from him is not a 'debt' within the meaning of that Act.
11. Neither the plaint nor the evidence on record, adduced by the appellant, shows that the amount of Rs. 6,000/- was advanced to the respondent for supply of Jaggery and that he supplied Jaggery worth Rs. 3,000/- only. On the other hand even according to PW1 respondent made part payments of Rs. 1,300/- and Rs. 1,700/-. Therefore, the debt due to the appellant from the respondent stood abated by virtue of the provisions of A.P. Act 45 of 1987 read with Act 7 of 1977 and so appellant is not entitled to recover the suit amount from the respondent. The point is answered accordingly.
12. In view of my finding on the point for consideration, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs.