made on the strength of the information given by P.Ws2 and 3 at the time of the purchase. True, the appellant has a contention that Ext.A21 is fabricated. But the first appellate court dispelled that contention observing that if the 1st respondent wanted to create document by fabrication, it was possible for him at least to write name of the appellant in Exts.A2 to A20 which he has not ventured to. A further fact the first appellate court noticed is that it is admitted by the appellant that towards part payment of the amount due to the 1st respondent, he has issued the cheques. No doubt, appellant contends that the cheques were issued as directed by the 2nd respondent. But regarding that, what is available is only the interested version of the appellant as D.W.2. The further fact first appellate court noticed is that though appellant claimed that he is an income tax payee and he has submitted returns showing details of whatever purchases he made for construction of the building and that would show that he has not purchased any of the items referred to in Ext.A2 to A20, for reasons known to him he has not produced a copy of the income tax return. These circumstances were taken as corroborating the evidence given by P.Ws2 and 3 that the goods were purchased for and on behalf of the appellant.
