Challenge in this second appeal is made by the plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.10.2008 in A.S.No.98 of 2006 on the file of the second Additional Sub-Court, Cuddalore confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 06.09.2005 in O.S.No.508 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Cuddalore.

2. Suit for recovery of money.

3. The averments in brief of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff owns agricultural land and raises groundnut crops in the land. The defendant is having a Mill by name 'Manonmani Vidhai Manila Udayappu Mill' and the plaintiff has been supplying groundnuts to the defendant for the last five or six years. For such supplies, the defendant used to pay the price and on 11.07.2003 the plaintiff supplied groundnuts to the defendant worth Rs.50,700/- and the defendant took delivery of the stock, but, did not pay cash for the same and instead, he passed a receipt writing down the calculation in his own hand and signed it and thus, the receipt evidences the transaction and the amount due to the plaintiff and in spite of several demands, the defendant did not make payment and also even though the plaintiff had lodged a complaint against the defendant with the Police, the defendant having not evinced interest to make the payment, the suit has been laid.

4. The averments in the written statement are briefly stated as follows:

The suit is not maintainable. The claim of the plaintiff that the defendant took delivery of groundnuts from the plaintiff on 11.07.2003 worth Rs.50,700/- and issued the receipt in question are false. The plaintiff preferred a false police complaint against the defendant. The defendant used to issue bills for the purchase of groundnuts and the document filed by the plaintiff is not a receipt at all and it is only an estimate showing the value of the groundnuts. The plaintiff approached the defendant and claimed to know the value of the groundnuts, which he proposed to sell the defendant and the plaintiff has not sold the groundnuts to the defendant. The defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. In support of the plaintiff's case, Exs.A1 and X1 have been marked and the plaintiff has been examined as P.W.1. On the side of the defendant, Exs.B1 to 6 were marked and the defendant has been examined as D.W.1.

6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit, as against which, the First Appeal preferred by the plaintiff also came to be dismissed. Hence, the second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

7. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

8. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for the recovery of money based upon the alleged receipt said to have been executed by the defendant, in connection with the supply of groundnuts made by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defence taken by the defendant is that the plaintiff has not supplied any groundnuts to the defendant on 11.07.2003 and that, the defendant did not issue any receipt for the same as alleged by the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the plaintiff approached him and wanted to know the value of the groundnuts, which he proposed to sell to the defendant and that, the defendant has given to the plaintiff only an estimate of the same and the document, in question, is not a receipt and therefore, based upon the receipt in question, no liability could be fastened on the defendant and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

9. The plaintiff bases his claim upon Ex.A1, the alleged receipt. According to the defendant, Ex.A1 is not a receipt issued by him for the supply of groundnuts made by the plaintiff. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the defendant, that Ex.A1 is only an estimate of the value of the groundnuts, which the plaintiff proposed to sell to the defendant and there