JUDGMENT Sen, J.
1. This is an application under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (Act 9 of 1887). Plaintiff applicant instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 406-14-0 principal and Rs. 77-13-0 interest, in all, Rs. 484-11-0, on the allegation that there were certain transactions between the parties about the purchase and sale of silver bars which terminated in a loss to the plaintiff and that the said loss was recoverable from the defendant.
2. Plaintiff alleged that he sold 13 bars of silver to the defendant and in his turn purchased four bars from him. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff did not sell more than four bars to him and that, as a matter of fact, he had sold 13 bars of silver to the plaintiff. The findings of the Court below may be summarized:
(1) The defendant purchased 13 bars from the plaintiff and sold four bars to him, and (2) that these transactions were not of the nature of wager.
3. The Court below threw out the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to substantiate the loss alleged by him in the plaint. Certain oral evidence was adduced by the plaintiff in support of his claim. This evidence consisted mainly of his statement and that of his munim. The Court below has given reasons for not accepting the said statements. The plaintiff had further produced his account books in support of his case. Entries in the account books are relevant evidence, but they are not by themselves sufficient to charge a person with liability. Section 34, Evidence Act, provides that:
entries in books of account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into Which the Court has to enquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any persons with liability.
4. In other words relevant entries in account books unless corroborated are not sufficient to fasten liability upon a person. This is the view which has been taken by the Court below. We are of opinion that this application is without force. It is accordingly dismissed with costs including fees in this Court on the higher scale.