Specific denial in account book disputes is essential; evasive pleadings and minor variance cannot upset concurrent findings.

Specific denial is required to challenge signatures on account books; a bare or evasive plea of forgery does not shift the evidentiary burden in the defendant's favour. The plaintiffs' witnesses proved the entries and acknowledgements, so a handwriting expert was not necessary and the transaction stood established. Minor variance between the plaint and the evidence did not cause prejudice, and regularly maintained business accounts could not be rejected without strong rebuttal. No substantial question of law arose to justify interference with concurrent findings under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the High Court's interference was unsustainable; the decree of the courts below was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiffs were required to prove the defendant's signatures on the account books by examining a handwriting expert, and whether the burden of disproving the signatures lay on the defendant in the face of evasive pleadings. (ii) Whether the alleged variance between the plaint and the evidence, and the challenge to the regularly maintained account books, justified interference with the findings of the courts below under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiffs were required to prove the defendant's signatures on the account books by examining a handwriting expert, and whether the burden of disproving the signatures lay on the defendant in the face of evasive pleadings.

Analysis: The plaintiffs led evidence through witnesses who identified and proved the entries in the books of account and the acknowledgements signed by the defendant. The defendant had not taken a specific plea of forgery or fraud in the written statement and had merely made a bald and evasive denial. Under the rules of pleading, a defendant must specifically traverse the material allegations and cannot rely on a general denial. In these circumstances, the signatures and the entries could not be discarded merely because a handwriting expert was not examined. The burden of proof remained on the plaintiffs to establish the transaction, but that burden was discharged by the evidence adduced.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were not obliged to produce a handwriting expert, and the defendant's challenge to the signatures failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged variance between the plaint and the evidence, and the challenge to the regularly maintained account books, justified interference with the findings of the courts below under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The discrepancy between the pleadings and the proof was minor and caused no prejudice or surprise to the defendant. The account books were shown to have been maintained in the regular course of business, and such accounts are ordinarily accepted as correct unless strong reasons show unreliability. The defendant led no convincing rebuttal, and the High Court's conclusion that the findings of the courts below were perverse was therefore unwarranted. On the material on record, no substantial question of law arose to justify reversal of the concurrent findings on this score.

Conclusion: The variance was not material, the account books could not be rejected, and the High Court's interference was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the decree of the courts below was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A party disputing entries in regularly maintained business accounts must take specific pleadings and adduce meaningful rebuttal; in the absence of such specific denial, minor variance between pleading and proof does not warrant interference with concurrent findings under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---