Bank entries need independent proof; disputed advances cannot create liability, and personal mortgage claims may still be time-barred.

Bank book entries, including certified copies under the bankers' books rule, are only prima facie evidence and cannot by themselves fasten liability where the alleged advance is disputed; independent proof of actual payment is required, and the unproved further advance could not be charged to the borrowers. On limitation, enforcement against mortgaged security may remain in time within the mortgage limitation period, but personal liability depends on the shorter limitation for the personal covenant. A mere account entry of part payment did not extend limitation absent the proof required by the Limitation Act, so the personal claim was time-barred while the suit for sale of the mortgaged property remained within time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a bank can fasten liability for an alleged further advance merely on certified entries in its books without independent proof of actual payment; and (ii) whether the suit was within limitation as to sale of the mortgaged property and as to personal liability.

Issue (i): Whether a bank can fasten liability for an alleged further advance merely on certified entries in its books without independent proof of actual payment.

Analysis: Entries in books of account regularly kept are relevant, but they are not by themselves sufficient to charge a person with liability. A certified copy under the special bankers' books provision is only prima facie evidence of the entry and has no greater evidentiary force than the original entry itself. Where the correctness of the accounts is disputed and the alleged advance is denied, the bank must adduce independent evidence to show that the money was actually advanced. Mere production of the certified account entry, without proof of the transaction reflected in it, is insufficient.

Conclusion: The alleged advance of Rs. 10,000 was not proved and liability for that amount could not be fastened on the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was within limitation as to sale of the mortgaged property and as to personal liability.

Analysis: A suit on a mortgage is within time for enforcement against the mortgaged security if brought within the mortgage limitation period, but a personal decree is governed by the shorter limitation applicable to the personal covenant. A mere entry of part payment in the bank's accounts does not amount to a valid acknowledgment or payment for limitation purposes unless supported by a writing signed by the debtor or equivalent proof required by the Limitation Act. On the facts, the entry relied on did not extend limitation for personal liability, and the later course of the account did not save that claim.

Conclusion: The claim for sale of the mortgaged property was within limitation, but the personal claim was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The decree was sustained only to the extent of enforcement against the mortgaged security for the proved amount, with no personal decree against the appellants and no liability for the unproved further advance.

Ratio Decidendi: Book entries, whether original or certified copies under the bankers' books law, cannot by themselves charge a person with liability unless the underlying transaction is independently proved when the entries are disputed.

---