JUDGMENT :-Heard Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel representing the appellants and Sri K. Subrahmanyam, learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent-plaintiff. 2. Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel representing the appellants Defendants 1 and 2 had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, in O.S. No.35 of 1980 in the judgment dated 13-3-1987 and also the findings recorded by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, in AS No.31 of 1987, dated 5-6-1993, and would comment that both the Courts had not properly appreciated the evidence available on record especially in the light of the proof of entries in the account books in view of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Chandradhar v. Gauhati Bank, AIR 1967 SC 1058 . The learned Counsel would contend that as far as the claim of relief of interest is concerned, inasmuch as the 1st respondent-plaintiff, as such had not preferred any appeal whatsoever in the light of the Reference Order made by the Division Bench reported in A. Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy v. Chekka Veera Raja Rao, 2004 (6) ALD 666 (DB), the- same may have to be answered in favour of the appellants. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant substantial questions of law and would comment that inasmuch as the findings recorded are perverse findings, in a Second Appeal the said findings can be disturbed. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the conditional order passed by this Court in CMP No.20359 of 1993 dated 25-1-1994 was complied with. 3. Sri K. Subrahmanyam, learned Counsel representing 1st respondent-plaintiff in all fairness would submit that the matter was referred to the Division Bench and the Division Bench on the aspect of claim of interest had answered the reference in negative and in the light of the same, as far as the claim of interest is concerned, the appellants are bound to succeed. The learned Counsel also would further comment that no doubt elaborate findings had been recorded by the Court of first instance and also by the appellate Court in relation to the entry in the account books and also the amount of Rs.10,000/-, which is now being seriously disputed, but, on appreciation of facts both the Courts had arrived at a particular conclusion and these are predominantly questions of fact and not questions of law, this Court while deciding a second appeal to be slow in disturbing such concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below while exercising powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Heard the learned Counsel. 5. On 25-1-1994, this Court made the following order: "The second appeal is admitted in view of the substantial question of law raised in Ground No.4 of Memorandum of Grounds". Ground No.4 specifying the further grounds as A, B, C, D, which reads as hereunder: (a) Whether the Courts below acted perversely in upholding the Commissioners findings which are based on no evidence? (b) Whether the Courts below erred in presuming that the disputed entries in account books are proved without any evidence being let into prove them and thus acted contrary to Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? (c) According to Section 34, entries in books of account do not prove themselves. In order to charge a person with liability on the basis of books of accounts, the person relying on the entries must prove by further evidence, the payment of money which may appear in the books of account Chandradhars case (supra). This fundamental legal principle was not appreciated and followed by the Courts below? (d) Whether the lower appellate Court was right in awarding interest in exercising its power under Order 41 Rule 33 when such interest was not awarded by the trial Court and no appeal was filed by the plaintiff questioning the order of the trial Court? 6. This fundamental legal principle was not appreciated and followed by the Courts below? (d) Whether the lower appellate Court was right in awarding interest in exercising its power under Order 41 Rule 33 when such interest was not awarded by the trial Court and no appeal was filed by the plaintiff questioning the order of the trial Court? 6. It is needless to say that Ground No. (a) is of general nature, grounds (b) and (c) virtually relate to the proof required to be made in the context of Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and ground (d) is in relation to the powers to be exercised by the appellate Court under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as Code for the purpose of convenience. 7. In A. Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthys case (supra), the Division Bench while answering reference had referred to the under noted cases: 1. Banarsi and others v. Ram Phal, 2003 (3) ALD 51 (SC) = (2003) 9 SCC 606 . 2. Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil and others v. Bapu Koyappa Patil and others, IT 2003 (2) SC 226. 3. Choudhary Sahu and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1982 SC 98 . 4. Harihar Prasad Singh and others v. Balmiki Prasad Singh and others, AIR 1975 SC 733 . 5. K. Muthuswami Gounder v. N. Palanippa Gounder, 1998 (7) Supreme 59 = 1998 (5) ALD (SCSN) 17. 6. Makkala Narsimlu v. Gunnala Raghunandan Rao, AIR 1977 AP 374 (DB). 7. State of Punjab and others v. Bakshish Singh, (1998) 8 SCC 222 . 8. Venukuri Krishna Reddy and another v. Kota Rami Reddy and others, AIR 1954 Mad. 848 . and ultimately observed at Paragraphs 19 and 20 as hereunder: "In this case, in the final decree, the trial Court did not award interest and no appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against it. It is only the defendants who had filed the appeal and wherein the lower Appellate Court sought to award the interest in exercise of discretion under Rule 33 of Order XLI C.P.C. It is to be seen that the relief of interest stands quite independent of the main relief. It is only the defendants who had filed the appeal and wherein the lower Appellate Court sought to award the interest in exercise of discretion under Rule 33 of Order XLI C.P.C. It is to be seen that the relief of interest stands quite independent of the main relief. Refusal of interest itself constitutes an independent and separate portion of decree, which requires to be appealed against and without which no relief could have been granted by the lower Appellate Court and therefore, the question of invoking the discretion under Rule 33 of Order XLI C.P.C. does not arise. Admittedly, there being no appeal or even cross-objections as contemplated under Rule 22 of Order XLI C.P.C., it cannot be said that the plaintiffs shall be entitled to interest relief. In view of the principles laid down in Venukuri Krishna Reddys case (supra), and Banarsis case (supra), the decision of this Court in Makkala Narasimulus case (supra), cannot have any application to the facts of the case and does not lay down correct principles of law. It is represented across the bar that the respondents/plaintiffs had already paid Court fee to the extent of grant of relief of interest. However, that itself would not in any way confer any right on the respondents/plaintiffs for the relief. In the circumstances, the reference is answered accordingly in negative". 8. In the light of what had been observed by the learned Division Bench in relation to the scope and ambit of Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code, this Court is of the considered opinion that when interest was not awarded by the trial Court and an appeal was not preferred by the plaintiff, questioning the same in an appeal preferred by certain defendants, such power not to be exercised by the appellate Court and this Court is of the considered opinion that granting of interest by the appellate Court cannot be sustained, and accordingly the findings recorded by the appellate Court in relation to granting of interest, which had not been granted by the trial Court, are unsustainable and the same are hereby set aside. 9. 9. The next question which had been argued in elaboration is in relation to the disputed entry of Rs.10,000/- and the proof thereof and the scope and ambit of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, hereinafter in short referred to as Act for the purpose of convenience. 10. The facts in brief are that the 1st respondent, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, filed a suit for dissolution of partnership firm and rendition of accounts as against Defendants 1 to 4 and a preliminary decree was passed on 23-2-1983. Subsequent thereto, a Commissioner was appointed and by order dated 13-3-1987 in OS No.35 of 1980, the learned Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, made a final decree declaring Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill Contractors Chekka Veera Raja Rao with a branch at Kakinada with the name Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Rice Stores as dissolved with effect from the end of December, 1979 and the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.31,000/- from the Defendant No.1 on payment of difference of Court fee of a sum of Rs.760/- giving some time for payment of Court fee. The evidence already on record and the evidence recorded by the Commissioner had been discussed at length. Aggrieved by the same, Defendants 1 and 2 carried the matter by way of appeal AS No.31 of 1987 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, impleading the plaintiff as 1 st respondent and Defendants 3 and 4 as Respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Judge, after elaborate discussion, allowed the appeal in part holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.15,932.93 ps from the 1st defendant with subsequent interest on Rs.11,772.43 ps (comprising of Rs.9,765.33 ps being the amount due to the plaintiff + Rs.2,007.10 ps being the profit) at 6% per annum from the date of the final decree passed by the Court of first instance i.e., 13-3-1987 till the date of realization, on payment of the difference of Court fee and the plaintiff is entitled to proportionate costs. 11. 11. As already referred to supra, as far as the interest portion is concerned, inasmuch as no independent appeal as such was preferred by the plaintiff, who was unsuccessful in getting the interest before the Court of first instance in view of the fact that the reference was answered by the learned Division Bench as referred to supra, those findings cannot be sustained. 12. In Chandradhars case (supra), the Apex Court held that no person can be charged with liability merely on the basis of entries in books of account, even where such books of account are kept in the regular course of business. There has to be further evidence to prove payment of the money which may appear in the books of account in order that a person may be charged with liability thereunder, except where a person to be charged accepts the correctness of the books of account and does not challenge them. (Section 34 of the Act) 13. The relevant portions of the findings recorded in relation thereto had been specifically pointed out and elaborate submissions were made in relation thereto. As can be seen from the contentions advanced and the findings recorded by both the Courts, the same contentions had been advanced before the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court as well. A Commissioner was appointed in the suit to take the accounts of the firm of Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill Contractors Chekka Veera Raja Rao in the light of the directions given in the preliminary decree dated 23-2-1983 to determine the amounts due to each partner of the partnership firm and file the report into the Court. Apart from the evidence already available on record before the Commissioner, Exs.A5 and A6 and B6 to B24 were marked. PW.1 and DWs.1 and 2 were examined before the Commissioner and considering the material placed before him, the learned Commissioner filed three schedules showing the amounts that each partner would get the amount from the 1st defendant, they are Schedules I-A, I-B and I-C and several details relating thereto had been well discussed both by the Court of first instance and the said findings had been confirmed by the appellate Court. A specific stand was taken that the plaintiff has to account for Rs.10,000/- encashed by way of draft by him, which was received from Sri Suryacharidra Rice Stores, Narsipatnam and the plaintiff failed to account for the same before the Commissioner and the Commissioner was wrong in making an observation in his report stating that the plaintiff has satisfactorily proved under which he had encashed the demand draft and handing over the cash to the 3rd defendant, who in turn credited to the finals account. The said contention advanced had been answered in detail by the Court of first instance at Paragraphs 10 and 11 and ultimately, after recording findings in detail at Paragraph 12, it was recorded that the plaintiff has to get Rs.31,000/-; Defendant No.1 has to get Rs.20,306.60 ps; 2nd defendant has to get Rs.30,109.86 ps; 3rd defendant has to get Rs.12,485.78 ps and 4th defendant has to get Rs.28,355.78 ps. Again the same contention was advanced even before the appellate Court. The appellate Court recorded reasons in detail in the elaborate judgment after recording all the contentions and had also taken note of the contention advanced relating to the non-examination of 3rd defendant, who was looking after the cash transactions, and discussed in detail the evidence of DW.1 and ultimately affirmed the findings. In the light of the concurrent findings recorded in detail by both the Courts below and this question being predominantly a question of fact in the light of the limitations imposed on this Court under Section 100 of the Code, this Court is not inclined to disturb the said findings based on facts. Accordingly the said findings are hereby confirmed. 14. Accordingly the said findings are hereby confirmed. 14. Except the aforesaid question referred to supra, no other questions were argued before this Court and in view of the same, the substantial question of law whether the lower appellate Court was right in awarding interest in exercising its power under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code when such interest was not awarded by the trial Court and no appeal was filed by the plaintiff questioning the order of trial Court to be answered in favour of the appellants in the light of the positive findings recorded by the learned Division Bench negativing the same while ordering the reference and accordingly it is held that inasmuch as the appellate Court has no power to award interest when the same was not awarded by the Court of first instance in a suit of this nature, inasmuch as such power cannot be exercised by the appellate Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the absence of any independent appeal having been preferred by the plaintiff, the awarding of interest by the appellate Court is hereby set aside. All other findings recorded by both the Courts below are hereby confirmed. 15. In the result, the second appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above, i.e., negativing the relief of interest awarded by the appellate Court. There shall be no order as to costs.