J.P. Jain, J.
1. This is a defendants' second appeal and is directed against the appellate decree of the District Judge Ganganagar, confirming the decree of the Civil Judge, Suratgarh in a suit instituted by the respondent Ganpatram for the recovery of R.s. 4038/4/9.
2. The case of Ganpatram is that he brought foodgrain on 24th, 26th and 27th May, 1959 for sale to the shop of the defendants in Hanumangarh, who were commission agents. According to him, after deduction of the incidental charges and the commission of the defendants, the sale price due to him was Rs. 4038/4/9 When he asked for the money, the defendants did not pay the amount. In the first instance, he filed a criminal complaint for criminal breach of trust, but it was dismissed on the ground that the matter involved a case of civil nature Accordingly, he instituted Suit No. 96/62 in the court of Civil Judge. Suratgarh for the recovery of the amount.
3. The defendant No. 1 is Firm Ramchand Bhagirath and defendants No. 2 and 3 are the partners in that firm Defendants No. 2 and 3 by their separate written-statements contested the suit. The learned Civil Judge after having tried the case decreed the plaintiff's suit by his judgment date 23.12. 1934. The defendants challenged that decree before the District Judge, Ganganagar, but they were unsuccessful. It is this decree that has been challenged before me in second appeal.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that Kesoram was one of the partners of the Firm Ramchand Bhagirath. He was a necessary party. It was also contended that Kesoram had been paid the price of the foodgrain received from the plaintiff. the learned Judge of the first appellate court held that even if Kesoram was a partner, that would not make the suit incompetent against the firm and other partner of the Firm. As regards the payment to Kesoram, it is (sic) that the alleged payment of Rs. 4038/4/9 said to have been paid to Kesoram is not a valid discharge of payment to the plaintiff. This contention has no substance and I agree with the finding of the first appellate court.
5. Another contention raised by Mr. Lodha is that Jangir singh was a partner in the foodgrain brought by the plaintiff to the shop of the defendant. According to his submission, Jangir singh was also a necessary party and the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable in his absence. This contention has no substance. Jangirsingh has appeared in the witness-box and he has stated that he had no interest in the foodgrain sold out through the commission agency of the defendants by Ganpatram plaintiff. The first appellate court was right in repelling this objection.
6. Next it has been argued that the documents Ex 4 and Ex 5 have been taken into consideration by the trial court as wall as by the lower appellate court even when these documents were not legally admissible in evidence. This is admitted that a criminal case was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants Ramchand and Bhagirath. They were also examined in the criminal court. Ex 4 is a certified copy of the statement of Bhagirath and Ev 5 is a certified copy of the statement of Ramchand.
7. The first contention of Mr. Lodha is that these documents have not been proved. It has been admitted by the defence that their statements were recorded by the criminal court. Under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, the record of the judicial court is a public document. Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act further provides that certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies. There will be a presumption as to the genuineness of the documents that the certified copies Ex. 4 and Ex. 5 contain the true statements of Ramchand and Bhagirath which were recorded by the Magistrate in the criminal case against them. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the two documents Ex. 4 and Ex. 5 are not admissible.
8. Next it is urged that the identity of the deponents has not been established as it cannot be said that these statements (Ex. 4 and Ex. 5) were made by the two defendants Bhagirath & Ramchand Defendant Ramchand appeared in the witness-box and admitted there was a criminal case against him initiated by the plaintiff and his statement was recorded by that court. He expressed his inability to identify his signatures on the original statement. That apart, the plaintiff stated that the statements of the two defendants were recorded in his presence. In this view of the evidence, I have no reason to disagree with the finding of the courts below that the statements Ex. 4 & Ex. 5 are those of the defendants Bhagirath and Ramchand. The contention of Mr. Lodha has, therefore, no merit and it must rejected.
9. It was further contended that these documents were not confronted to the defendants when they appeared in the witness-box under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. Suffice it to say, that the Jaw with regard to this is well settled as laid down by the Supreme Court in Bharat Singh and Ors. v. MST. Bhagirathi : 1SCR606 . It was observed by their lordships as follows:
Admission have to be clear if they are to be used against the person making them. Admissions are substantive evidence by themselves, in view of Sections 17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, though they are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. We are of opinion that the admissions duly proved are admissible evidence irrespective of whether the party making them appeared in the witness box or not and whether that party when appearing as witness was confronted with those statements in case it made a statement contrary to those admissions. The purpose of contradicting the witness under Section 145 of the Evidence Act is very much different from the purpose of proving the admission. Admission is substantive evidence of the fact admitted while a previous statements used to contradict a witness does not become substantive evidence and merely serves the purpose of throwing doubt on the veracity of the witness. What weight is to be attached to an admission made by a party is a matter different from its use as admissible evidence.
10. The learned Judge of the first appellate court, after having considered the oral evidence of P.W.I Ganpatram, P W. 2 Jangir Singh and P.W. 3 Ishar coupled with the documentary evidence on record consisting of Ex. 1, Ex. 2, and Ex 3 along with the statements contained in Ex. 5 came to the conclusion that the plaintiff's case was fully established. This is a finding of fact and cannot be challenged. No ground has been shown that this finding is unreasonable or perverse.
11. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.
12. Leave to appeal to Division Bench is prayed for, but is refused.