1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted in the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Bellary in O. S. No. 802 of 1964 by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 3909-93 due on a promissory note executed by the defendant for Rs. 3550-63 on 15-8-1962 with interest of Rs. 358-50 thereon and a sum of Rs. 0-80 Ps. towards demand charges. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, this is what the plaintiff stated :
"The defendant was borrowing sums now and then from the plaintiff's shop for his family necessity. After settlement of the entire account and account was stated between the parties on 15-8-62, the defendant became due in a sum of Rs. 3550-63 nP. for which consideration, the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on that date agreeing to repay the same on demand together with interest at 12% per annum. Till now, the defendant failed to pay any amount towards the suit pronote debt."
In effect, what the plaintiff thereby meant was that the promissory note on the basis of which the suit was instituted was one which came into existence in lieu of the earlier transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant under which certain sum of money was found to be due after looking into the accounts. The defendant while admitting the execution of the promissory note, pleaded that he was an agriculturist as defined in S.3 (ii) of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act 1938 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and he prayed that the accounts between himself and the plaintiff had to be reopened and reliefs should be given under S.13 of the Act.

2. The trial court as well as the lower appellate Court have both found that the defendant is an agriculturist and is entitled to the relief under the Act and that finding is not disputed before me.

3. The courts below found that prior to the suit promissory note, the defendant had executed another promissory note for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as per Exhibit P - 2 on 11-8-1961 in settlement of which the suit pronote came to be executed. The trial Court treating the debt due under the suit pronote Exhibit P - l as the Principal sum due, made a decree for Rs. 3722-27 by applying S.13 of the Act. The lower appellate Court however treated that the amount of Rs. 3,000/- shown as the Principal in Exhibit P - 2 dated 11-8-1961 as the principal and made a decree for a sum of Rs. 3466-00 by applying S.13 of the Act. The defendant feeling aggrieved by the decree of the lower appellate court, has filed this Second Appeal.

4. The contention of Sri T. S. Ramachandra, learned counsel for the defendant is that the court below was wrong in not reopening the accounts between the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the period prior to the date of Exhibit P - 2 namely 11-8-1961 and in treating the sum of Rs. 3,000/- shown as the principal in the Exhibit P - 2 as the principal debt for purposes of applying S.13 of the Act. He also contended that the finding of the lower appellate court that the transaction evidenced by Exhibit P - 2 was a fresh transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant having nothing to do with the earlier transactions between them is an erroneous one and has been arrived at by the lower appellate court by misreading the evidence. Before going into the question whether the defendant is entitled to reopen the accounts prior to 11-8-1961, it is necessary to determine whether the finding of the lower appellate court that on 11-8-1961 a fresh loan was advanced to the defendant is correct or not. As already stated in the beginning the plaintiff in his plaint admitted that Exhibit P - l the suit promissory note was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in settlement of the amount due by the defendant to the plaintiff under several other earlier transactions between them. He did not state in the plaint that the said document was executed in settlement of a debt which was due under Exhibit P - 2 the promissory note dated 11-8-1961. The case of the defendant in reply to the al