Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit to recover arrears of michavaram under, a kychit Ex. A dated 17th August, 1931, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. What was sought to be recovered was 30 paras of paddy and one anna three pies payable for the year 1931-32. Ex. A purports to be a renewal of a prior kanom under which the michavaram payable was 10 paras 1 edangali of paddy and one anna three pies. The defendant pleaded that the provision for the payment of increased michavaram was inserted in Ex. A without his knowledge and by the fraud of plaintiffs kariasthans, that he had agreed to take a renewal only on the same terms as those contained in the previous kanom Ex. I, that the stipulation in Ex. A for payment of increased michavaram was unsupported by consideration and was also opposed to the provisions of the Malabar Tenancy Act and that therefore it was not enforceable. Both the lower Courts have concurrently found that Ex. A was executed by the defendant with full knowledge of its contents and that no fraud was practised on him as alleged. This finding has not been challenged in second appeal. Both the lower Courts have howe