M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal against the divergent findings of the courts below. The plaintiff-appellant succeeded in the trial court in obtaining a money decree against the defendant respondent. On appeal by the defendant, the lower appellate Court reversed the finding and dismissed the suit. The parties to this appeal will be referred to by the rank and position that were assigned to them in the trial Court. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,085 which included interest on the principal amount advanced in the sum of Rs. 1,800 against the suit pronote Ex. P. 1 supported by Ex. P. 2 the consideration receipt. In the plaint the plaintiff averred that he had advanced the money to the defendant against the said pronote dated 7-2-1966 as the same was required by the defendant for his business reasons ; that the defendant paid only Rs. 100 on 5-3-1966; that in spite of repeated demands the defendant did not pay the balance of principal or interest thereon. After giving deduction to Rs. 100 paid on 5-3-1966 he worked out the principal and interest and claimed Rs. 2,085 in all. ( 3 ) THE suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the pronote was executed for collateral security in connection with the prize amount he recived in respect of one of the two chits to which he was subscribing in the plaintiff's private chit fund transactions, The said chit fund transaction used to take place on 5th and 10th of each month ; that the chit value in both the chits was Rs. 2,000 consisting of 20 subscribers in each of the chits ; that he had purchased two of the chits, one auctioned on the 5th and the other on the 10th ; that he had fully paid up the first chit and he withheld some instalments, to be precise five of them, in respect of the 2nd chit as the plaintiff did not return the promissory note with reference to the first chit which had been fully paid up. In those circumstances, he admitted five instalments as due in respect of the second chit and that he was not liable to pay anything else. In those circumstances, he admitted five instalments as due in respect of the second chit and that he was not liable to pay anything else. ( 4 ) IT is necessary to state at this stage itself that after the filing of the suit the defendant has paid Rs. 500 to the plaintiff towards the admitted amount. Therefore, that aspect of the question need not be considered in this appeal. ( 5 ) ON the pleadings as above, the trial court framed the following three issues :1) Whether the defendant proves that the suit promissory note came into existence in connection with the chit fund auction and he has paid all the subscription in respect of chit ? 2) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any interest ? 3) To what relief are the parties entitled ? ( 6 ) ON issue No. 1 it held against the defendant. On issue No. 2 it held in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Nobody had complained that necessary issues had not been framed or that the issues were improper. Therefore, I must presume that parties went to trial knowing their respective burdens and also as to what material issue was in dispute. ( 7 ) TO facilitate, what was not disputed may be stated. The execution of the pronote and consideration receipt Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 respectively by the defendant was not in dispute on the date when the parties went to trial. It was also not in dispute that the amount mentioned in the pronote was Rs. 1,800 and not Rs. 1,500 as claimed by the defendant while he was giving evidence. On the first issue framed the defendant questioned the awarding of interest. I do not know why Issue No. 2 should depend upon issue No. 1. Nothing in law prevents interest being charged even in respect of prize amount given in a chit transaction. It is now well settled that chit fund transactions are not loan transactions but chose-in-actions. In transactions involving chose-in-actions, it is open to parties to contract one way or other regarding interest. I will not say anything more as it is not. in issue in this appeal. ( 8 ) THE defendant who had the burden of discharging the onus on him in relation to issue No. 1, in additions to himself, examined two witnesses. In transactions involving chose-in-actions, it is open to parties to contract one way or other regarding interest. I will not say anything more as it is not. in issue in this appeal. ( 8 ) THE defendant who had the burden of discharging the onus on him in relation to issue No. 1, in additions to himself, examined two witnesses. Those were neighbouring shop owners who spoke to the fact of the plaintiff running the so called chit fund transactions with two chits in a month. The. defendant also examined himself in support of his case and spoke to the same fact and asserted in the witness-box that he had made several payments by cheques and also on some occasions in cash towards the amount due on the admitted transactions to discharge the liability under the suit pronote. On account of certain discrepancies in the oral evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 2, the trial Court came to the conclusion that their evidence could not be believed. Therefore, it held issue No. 1 against the defendant and decreed the suit as prayed for. On appeal, reassessing the evidence of both the plaintiff and defendant, the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that there were circumstances warranting reversal of the judgment of the trial Court and accordingly reversed the same. ( 9 ) THE main reason, as I can see from the judgment of the lower appellate Court for reversing the decision of the trial court, is that in response to an application made by the defendant calling upon the plaintiff to produce the books of accounts in his possession relating to the matter in issue, the plaintiff did not produce the same on the ground that he had not maintained any such accounts. In that circumstance, the lower appellate court came to the conclusion having regard to the type of oral evidence which was before it, that had the plaintiff produced the books of accounts his explanation regarding the admitted receipts by cash and cheques would have been discredited as the same ought to have found place in the books of account relating to his shop. His explanation was that those payments were made towards purchase transactions on credit made by the defendant in the plaintiff's provisions shop on a number of occasions. His explanation was that those payments were made towards purchase transactions on credit made by the defendant in the plaintiff's provisions shop on a number of occasions. It is also his explanation that the defendent paid some times by cash and some times by cheques towards such transactions. But he was unable to explain to the satisfaction of the lower appellate court as to way on a majority of occasions the cheque was drawn only for a sum of Rs. 100. It is in relation to that that the books of accounts have any relevance. Otherwise, the plaintiff's explanation that he did not have any chit fund transactions in his shop and that he had also no books in that behalf would have to be necessarily inferred. ( 10 ) 1 have seen the application made under Order 12 Rule 8 by the defendant. What it required the plaintiff to do was to produce the books which would be connected with the matter in issue. The matter in issue was the existence or non- existence of the chit transactions in the shop of the plaintiff. It had nothing to do with the shopping accounts. of tbe plaintiff who was admittedly a sales-tax assessee. In these circumstances there is an element of mis-direction in appreciating the evidence by the lower appellate court. For no apparent reason it is presumed, that is, inresponse to the application under Order 12 Rule 8, the plaintiff was required to produce all and every book of account which he had in his possession. In that circumstance it had drawn an adverse inference under S. 114 of the Evidence Act against the plaintiff. I am not in agreement with this. In response to the application under Order 12 Rule 8 the plaintiff was never required nor called upon to produce books of accounts which were not in issue before the Court nor was there any specific demand for the production of shop accounts of the plaintiff. Therefore, the learned first appellate Judge was in error in giving the benefit to the defendant, of adverse inference drawn against the plaintiff. This is the overwhelming point which persuaded the first appellate Judge to dismiss the suit. Therefore, the learned first appellate Judge was in error in giving the benefit to the defendant, of adverse inference drawn against the plaintiff. This is the overwhelming point which persuaded the first appellate Judge to dismiss the suit. Therefore, the judgment of the lower appellate Court has to be set aside and the matter remanded to the lower appellate court for fresh consideration of the evidence without reference to non-production of the shop accounts by the plaintiff in response to the application of the defendant under Order 12 rule 8 of the C. P. C. It is made clear that what was required by that application of the defendant was that the plaintiff should produce the books of accounts relating to chit fund transactions allegedly carried on in his shop, and not any other books of accounts. ( 11 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the lower appellate Court for disposal in accordance with law bearing in mind the above observations. There will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .