JUDGMENT 1. - This is a second appeal against the judgement and decree of District Judge, Bikaner, dated March 14, 1968, reversing the decree passed by the Munsiff, Bikaner, and dismissing the suit. 2. The appellant filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 1100/- including interest and miscellaneous expenses on the basis of the three documents viz. Ex.1, Ex.2 and Ex.3 alleged to have been executed by deceased Malamsingh. The defendants, who are the heirs of the deceased Malamsingh, resisted the suit. They denied execution of the documents by Malamsingh and also receipt of consideration. The learned Munsiff, Bikaner, in whose court the suit was instituted held that the three documents Exs. 1,2 and 3 were executed by deceased Malamsingh. He also held that Malamsingh had received consideration for all these documents. In the result, the learned Munsiff decreed the suit. On appeal by the defendants, the learned District Judge, after careful appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove the receipt of consideration by deceased Malamsingh. He accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Hence this second appeal. 3. Mr. H.M. Lodha, learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant, contends that the learned District Judge has committed a gross error in placing the burden of proving the consideration on the plaintiff. He urges that when the execution of certain document containing recital as to the receipt of consideration is proved to have been executed, then the burden of proving want of consideration shifts to the executant or his legal representatives. He further contends that there is no reliable evidence on the side of the defendants to prove that Malamsingh executed Ex. 1, Ex.2 and Ex.3 without receipt of consideration. In my opinion, there is no substance in the above contention. The learned District Judge has dealt with the entire evidence exhaustively and disbelieved the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses and relying upon the circumstantial evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants, came to the conclusion that the documents Ex.1, Ex.2 and Ex.3 were executed by Malamsingh without receiving any money from the plaintiff, I do not find any good ground to interfere with this finding of fact in second appeal. 4. No other point has been pressed. 5. There is no force in this appeal and as such it is dismissed. 4. No other point has been pressed. 5. There is no force in this appeal and as such it is dismissed. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs throughout. *******