Mere admission of handwriting on unauthenticated photocopies is insufficient to prove the contents of accounts.

The defendant, a government contractor, executed a subcontract with the plaintiff on January 6, 1992, for the construction of police staff quarters in Mandvi, Kachchh.

Upon completion, the plaintiff filed a civil suit (Special Civil Suit No. 27 of 1997) for recovery of ₹5,06,029/-, alleging outstanding principal on security deposits, unpaid running bills, and interest at 30% per annum.

The defendant contested the interest claims and alleged outstanding sales tax dues but admitted in its written statement that ₹35,096/- was payable from the security deposit.

The Trial Court (7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kachchh) partly decreed the suit for the admitted amount of ₹35,096/- with 6% interest.

1. Whether the plaintiff proved the total suit claim of ₹5,06,029/- through cogent evidence and books of accounts.

2. Whether the documentary evidence at Exh. 106 (photocopy of accounts) was sufficient to establish legal liability.

3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest at the rate of 30% per annum in the absence of a contractual provision.

The Court applied Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, asserting that the burden of proof lies on the person who desires the court to give judgment on any legal right.

It relied on Rangammal v. Kuppuswami (AIR 2011 SC 2344), which held that a plaintiff must establish their case on the strength of their own material and cannot rely on the weakness of the defense.

The Court applied Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act and the principle from Alumal Tahelram v. Mehthram Basarmal (1968 GLR 1078), stating that entries in books of account require independent corroboration (vouchers, receipts, or oral evidence) to hold a person liable.

The High Court observed that the plaintiff failed to produce original books of account, bills, or vouchers to corroborate the claims for outstanding dues.

Regarding Exh. 106—a photocopy of accounts allegedly in the handwriting of the defendant’s son—the Court held that mere admission of handwriting does not equate to an admission of the correctness of the contents.

As a photocopy, it lacked the evidentiary value required under the "best evidence" rule.

The Court highlighted a critical tactical error where the plaintiff's own counsel suggested to the defense witness that only ₹35,096/- was outstanding, which the witness admitted.

The Court found no contractual basis for the 30% interest claim in the subcontract (Exh. 56).

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court’s judgment directing the defendant to pay only ₹35,096/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of the suit till realization.

The R&P was ordered to be returned to the Trial Court.