The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove his case by good and reliable evidence.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff against the respondent, who was the defendant in the suit, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4450-10-0 being the value of 17 tons of oil-cake said to have been supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant on 8-7-1951. The learned District Munsiff of Adoni who tried the suit accepted the plaintiffs case and decreed the suit with costs. On appeal, the learned District judge of Kurnool reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff is as follows :

( 3 ) THE plaintiff is the owner and proprietor of an oil mill at Adoni called "sree Maruthi Oil Mills, Adoni". He used to manufacture groundnut oil, oilcake and such other by-products, The defendant. which is a firm at Adoni represented by its managing partner Vitta Anjanayya, had been the plaintiffs customer from 1949 and was purchasing oil-cake from the plaintiff. On 6-7-1951 Vitta Anjanayya, the managing partner of the defendant-firm. Went to the plaintiffs mill and purchased from the plaintiffs clerk G. Urukunda Rao, in the absence of the plaintiff who was then away in Bombay, 17 tons of groundnut oil-cake at Rs. 255. 00 per ton, agreeing to pay the price on taking delivery. The defendant supplied 241 empty gunny bags for being loaded with the oil-cake, and on 7-7-1951 the bags were filled with the cake by the plaintiffs men under instructions from the defendant and the price of the cake i. e. Rs. 4335. 00 was debited to the defendants account in the plaintiffs account books. The defendant took delivery of the 241 bags of oilcake on 8-7-1951 and promised to remit the amount immediately but he failed to do so. Thereupon, on 13-7-1951 the plaintiff sent a bill for the amount due and made several demands for payment but in vain: The plaintiff therefore instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4335. 00 plus interest at 9 per cent per annum, in all amounting to Rs. 4450/10. 00.

( 4 ) THE case of the defendant on the other hand is that he did not purchase any oil-cake on 6-7-1951; that he did not deliver any empty gunny bags to the plaintiffs clerk; that he did not take delivery of any oil-cake on 8-7-1951 and did not promise to pay the price thereof. The defendants further case is that the plaintiff had forged the delivery note and produced it into court as evidence of the transaction and that the usual practice was that the goods contracted for from the plaintiff and purchased by the defendant, were delivered by the plaintiff only after payment of cash under delivery orders issued by the purchaser after obtaining the acknowledgment of delivery in the gate pass-book, and that no goods were delivered and paid for without the delivery order under any circumstances. The defendant further alleges that he had purchased 241 bags of oil cake worth Rs. 3800. 00 at Rs. 219. 00 per ton on 5-1-1951 and had paid the price in cash and had taken delivery of the same against a delivery order or gate-pass dated 6-1-1951. Taking advantage of the existence of the said delivery order dated 6-1-1951, the plaintiff had made a material alteration in it in the month by changing the figure 1 into the figure 7 so as to make it appear that it was dated 6-7-1951 and had filed the same into court in support of his false claim. The defendant further states that on 21-6-1951 he had issued a lawyers notice to the plaintiff claiming damages from the plaintiff for breach of certain contracts; and as a counterblast to that claim of the defendant, the plaintiff had fabricated his accounts and forged the above-mentioned delivery note and filed the present suit. No bill for the goods alleged to have been sold by the plaintiff to the defendant on 6-7-1951 was ever sent to the defendant. In short, the defendants case is a total denial of the alleged transaction coupled with an allegation that the claim of the plaintiff is false and fictit