Book entries alone do not prove liability; unlawful cotton sale and disputed debit entries triggered limited monetary recovery.

Book entries in commercial accounts, though relevant, do not by themselves prove liability; the party relying on them must show that they reflect actual transactions and real payments. On the facts stated, the defendants failed to prove that the disputed debit entry was genuine or that the sale of the 110 bales of cotton was lawfully justified, including on any unpaid seller's lien or margin-money basis. The plaintiffs were therefore entitled to recover the amount wrongly debited with contractual interest, but not damages calculated on the suit-date market rate, since the earlier breach and the relevant delivery-date market rate were not proved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the defendants had proved that the disputed debit entry of Rs. 1,136/4/- was genuine and that the consequent sale of the 110 bales of cotton was justified; (ii) whether the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or any monetary relief for the wrongful sale and debit entries.

Issue (i): Whether the defendants had proved that the disputed debit entry of Rs. 1,136/4/- was genuine and that the consequent sale of the 110 bales of cotton was justified.

Analysis: Entries in books of account are relevant when regularly kept in the course of business, but they are not by themselves sufficient to fasten liability. The defendants were required to prove that the entries reflected actual facts and actual payments made on the plaintiffs' behalf. The evidence did not establish that the November cotton transactions were truly entered into or settled as claimed, nor that any amount was actually paid by the defendants in respect of those transactions. The claim that the cotton was sold because of insufficient margin money also failed, since the defendants could not show that they had a right to appropriate amounts relating to separate transactions for that purpose. The plea of an unpaid seller's lien was not made out, and the evidence as to the alleged sale of the 110 bales was found unreliable.

Conclusion: The defendants failed to prove the disputed debit entry or any lawful justification for selling the 110 bales of cotton.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or any monetary relief for the wrongful sale and debit entries.

Analysis: The plaintiffs could not recover damages on the basis of the suit-date market rate, because the relevant breach occurred earlier and the rate prevailing when delivery was demanded was not proved. However, once the disputed debit entry was disallowed, the plaintiffs became entitled to recover the amount wrongly charged against them, with contractual interest up to the date of suit and further interest thereafter on the principal sum.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were entitled to partial monetary relief, but not to damages on the basis claimed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to a limited extent, resulting in recovery of the excess amount wrongly debited, while the wider claim for damages failed; the connected revision was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Book entries in commercial accounts, though relevant, do not by themselves prove liability, and a commission agent cannot justify sale of a principal's goods or extend a lien beyond the specific transactions and goods to which it legally attaches.

---