1. The simple question for consideration in this second appeal filed by the defendant is whether the courts below went wrong in rejecting the plea of discharge supported by Ext.Bl receipt ignoring the evidence of Dws. I and 2 and the opinions of two hand-writing experts.

2. Execution of Ext. Al pronote for Rs.6,000/- and receipt of consideration are admitted. Plea is that Rs.5,500/- was repaid through his son Dw.2 and Ext.Bl receipt was obtained. At the instance of the appellant Ext.Bl was originally compared by an expert with the admitted writings of the respondent. They were found to be of the same person. Then another expert examined at the instance of the respondent He also gave the same opinion. The experts were not examined. Dws.1 and 2 were found unreliable. There were some inherent improbabilities in their evidence. These grounds prompted the trial court and appellate court to reject the plea of discharge which was denied by the respondent.

3. Burden of proof is undoubtedly on the appellant. Whether he successfully discharged that burden by the evidence on record is a question of fact on which both the courts adjudged against him. Barring Ext.Bl and the opinion of