Odgers, J.

1. I postponed judgment on the 15th September in order to give the appellants vakil an opportunity of satisfying me that the District Judge went into the question of the nature of the accounts in the case in spite of its not being raised by the parties as it is not in the grounds of appeal to the lower appellate Court. The learned vakil now states that he is unable to get information on the point.

2. The suit is brought by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 795 odd, which is said to be due to him from the defendant, a money-lender. The course of business between the parties was apparently that the plaintiff should draw money whenever he wanted it and should also deposit money with the defendant. The plaintiff has not produced any accounts of his own. He relies on a copy of the defendants accounts, Exhibit A. The District Munsif found that the plaintiff had proved his case as he held that a settlement had taken place on either the 14th or the 17th of December 1913. The District Judge, to whom appeal was taken, discredited the evidence with regard to this settlement and that is a finding of fact by which I am bound in second appeal. But the learned Judge goes on to consi