Short Note : This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,168 which comprises of Rs. 3,800 as the principal amount and the rest as interest due thereon. There is now no controversy that on 8-11-1966, two loans of Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 1,800, i.e. in all Rs. 3,800 were taken by the defendant from the plaintiff and two pronotes and two receipts, i.e., Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4 were executed by the defendant to evidence these loan transactions. The plaintiff claims that nothing was paid by the defendant in repayment of these loans. On this basis, the suit was filed on 4-11-1969 for recovery of the principal amount and the interest due thereon. The defendant admitted execution of the above documents and taking of both the loans as also his liability to repay the same with interest at that rate. However, the defence was that a sum of Rs. 5,100 was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff on 30-03-1969 which was a repayment of the entire debt due on both the loans. An entry (Ex.D-1) bearing the signature of the plaintiff contained in the defendant's cash-book was relied on to prove this repayment. Ex.D-2 is alleged to be the corresponding entry in the defendant's Khata to prove this repayment. Held : It is contended by Shri S.L. Jain that the defendant's brother Laxmichand was examined as a plaintiff witness so that the plaintiff was bound by his entire testimony including his version supporting the defendant's case of repayment of the loan. It is sufficient to state that Laxmichand was permitted by the Court to be declared hostile and he was then cross-examined as a plaintiff's counsel. Moreover, Laxmichand was examined as a plaintiff's witness only in view of the plaintiff's explanation about the presence of his signatures in Ex.D-1. This contention has also, therefore, no force. 2. It was then argued that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on the defendant when the initial burden of proving his case continued all along on the plaintiff. At this stage, it is sufficient to state that in view of clear findings given by the Court below, the question of burden of proof is no longer of any significance. It has clearly been found as a fact that the payment of Rs. At this stage, it is sufficient to state that in view of clear findings given by the Court below, the question of burden of proof is no longer of any significance. It has clearly been found as a fact that the payment of Rs. 5,100 on 30-3-1969 by the defendant to the plaintiff has not been proved and there can be no doubt that the burden of proving this fact was on the defendant and not on the plaintiff. As stated earlier, this is the real question in controversy between the parties. 3. Shri S.L. Jain also argued that the plaintiff being a shrewed money-lender, it was most unnatural to accept that he would sign a blank sheet of paper as contended by him and found by the Court below. It is sufficient to say that on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, that possibility does appear to be more probable as found by the Court below. Moreover, this is no longer open as a consideration in assailing the finding of fact unless that finding is open to challenge otherwise under any of the permissible grounds. In my opinion, no case has been made out by the counsel for the appellant for reopening the above finding of fact. Appeal dismissed.