BASNAYAKE, C.J.—Agostinu v. Kumaraswamy
Present: Basnayake, C.J., and K. D. de Silva, J.
AGOSTINU and others, Appellants, and KUMARASWAhlY andothers, Respondents
S.C. 283—D.G. Colombo, J,218J3I.B.
Evidence Ordinance—Section 900—Entries in a banker's book—Proof.
The only way of proving entries in a banker’s book is by either producingthe original or certified copies of the entries therein as prescribed by section00C of the Evidence Ordinance.
j^kpPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Colombo.
V. Perera, Q.G., with J. M. Jaycimanne, for Necessary PartiesAppellants.
Nadesan, Q.C., with B. Manikkavasagar and V. K. Palasunlheram,for Plaintiffs-Respondents..
December 3, 1956. Bas>*ayaxe, C.J.—.-
The only question that arises for decision in this appeal is whetherentries in the books of a banker have been proved in the mannerprescribed in Section 90C of the Evidence Ordinance. That sectionreads :—-
“ Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, a certified copy of anyentry in a banker’s book shall in all legal proceedings be received asprima facie evidence of the existence of such entry, and shall beadmitted as evidence of the matters, transactions, and accounts thereinrecorded in every case where, and to the same extent as, the originalentry itself is now by law admissible, but not further or otherwise.”
The document produced is not a certified copy of the entries in thebanker’s book ; but a statement prepared with the aid of those entriescertified by the accountant of the bank. . Objection was taken at thetrial to tho production of the statement in question ; but the learnedtrial Judge over-ruled it. Wo are of opinion that he is wrong. Section
T. S. FERNANDO, J.—Perera v. Per era
-SOC of the Evidence Ordinance does not apply to the statements produced.The only way of proving entries in a banker’s book is by either producingthe original or certified copies of the entries therein as prescribed by•Section 90C. There being no legal proof that two payments -were madein respect of the bond No. 3571 on 21st April 1941 and 24th September1941 the plea of prescription is entitled to succeed.-
We accordingly set aside the judgment of the learned District Judge-and make order dismissing the plaintiffs’ action. The necessary parties-appellants are entitled to the costs of appeal and to the costs of thetrial in the Court below.,;
K D. be SrLVA J.—I agree.
AGOSTINU and others, Appellants, and KUMARASWAMY and others, Respondents