Short Note : 1. The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of a loan of Rs. 2151.76 paise. The defendant is a Gond and a Sonjia labourer of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he advanced Rs.1,750 in cash and the defendant executed a bond, Ex. P-1 wherein he agreed to pay the loan by lending his services for seven years. There was also a stipulation that if there was a breach of contract, he will pay Rs.500 as damages. The plaintiff admitted that a sum of Rs. 777.78 paise were paid. Thereafter, the defendant did not serve and hence the suit. 2. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the document was not executed after explaining the contents to the defendant. 3. The first appellate Court, however, found that Rs.1,750 was paid to the defendant and he had executed the document (Ex.P.1) after accepting the amount. As regards repayment, the first appellate Court was of the view that Rs.777-12-2 were paid by the defendant. The plaintiff was entitled to the rest of the amount plus interest. Thus, he has passed a decree of Rs. 972.22 paise. Held: The Anusuchit Jan Jati Rini Sahayata Adhiniyam came into force during the pendency of the appeal in May 1967. Shri Padhye pointed out that though the defendant was a Gond but he was not a member of scheduled tribes within the meaning of the Adhiniyam. The Schedule indicates as to who were to be considered tribals for a specified area and mentions the casts of tribals who could be considered aboriginal tribal with reference to the area to get the benefits of the Adhiniyam. For Rajnandgaon tahsil, Gonds have not been specified to be tribals. Therefore, it is clear that though the defendant is a Gond, he would not get the benefit of the Adhiniyam. 4. We are then Left with the second question as to the burden. The perusal of the judgment will show that the contention of Shri Pandhye is without substance. The plaintiff has been able to prove that he had advanced a sum of Rs.1,750. The appellate Court had given good reasons as to why the defendant ought not to be believed. The question of burden would be of Little significance after both the parties have led evidence and were fully aware of the issues in the case. The plaintiff has been able to prove that he had advanced a sum of Rs.1,750. The appellate Court had given good reasons as to why the defendant ought not to be believed. The question of burden would be of Little significance after both the parties have led evidence and were fully aware of the issues in the case. It was known to the defendant as to what he was required to refute. In such circumstances, the suit could not be decided merely on the question of onus having been wrongly placed on the defendant. Appeal dismissed.