Account entries alone do not prove liability unless books are regularly kept and supported by evidence.

An isolated bahi entry could not by itself sustain a recovery claim where the plaintiff failed to prove that the books of account were regularly kept in the course of business. The alleged loan entry remained unsupported because no principal witness from the firm entered the witness box and the attesting witness did not support the case. Applying Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court reiterated that account entries are relevant only when the underlying books are shown to be regularly maintained, and they are not sufficient on their own to fasten liability. No jurisdictional error or patent illegality was found in the first appellate court's reversal of the trial court decree.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff could succeed in a suit for recovery on the basis of an isolated bahi entry when the books of account were not shown to be regularly kept in the course of business, and whether the first appellate court had erred in reversing the decree granted by the trial court.

Analysis: The claim was founded on a single account entry said to record a loan transaction. The plaintiff did not plead or prove that the books were regularly maintained in the course of business, and none of the principal persons connected with the firm entered the witness box. The alleged attesting witness did not support the case, and the entry stood unsupported by independent evidence. On the settled scope of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, entries in books of account are relevant only when the books are shown to be regularly kept, and such entries by themselves are not sufficient to fasten liability. The court also found no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the appellate court's appreciation of the evidence.

Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to prove the recovery claim on the basis of the account entry, and the reversal by the first appellate court was upheld.

---