Judgment :- The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5, 581/- from the defendant due under a promissory note. The case of the plaintiff was that on 1-5-1974 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 4, 000/- and in evidence of the same, he executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant has not paid the money and the plaintiff issued a lawyer's notice on 17-11-75, since the defendant has not paid the money in spite of the demand the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5, 581/-. The defendant though raised a plea that he has not only not borrowed the money and executed the suit promissory note, but also raised a plea that he was entitled to the benefits of a 'small farmer' as defined under Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1976 (Act 31 of 1976). The trial Court dismissed the suit filed holding that the defendant has not executed the suit promissory note and the defendant was also entitled to the benefit of Act 31 of 1976. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam. The appellate Court found, on the basis of the evidence, that the defendant had received the sum of Rs. 4, 000/- from the plaintiff at the rate of 12% per annum and the suit promissory note was executed for consideration in evidence of the loan. In so far as the other point namely, whether the defendant was entitled to the benefit of Act 31 of 1976 was concerned, the appellate Court agreed with the reasoning and conclusion of the learned trial Judge and held that the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of Act 31 of 1976 and dismissed the appeal. 2. The plaintiff has filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing the suit. 3. The only contention urged on behalf of the appellant is that the defendant was claiming the benefits assured under Act 31 of 1976 and the claim made by the defendant is a statutory benefit and the burden of proof is on the defendant to clearly establish before the Court that he was entitled to the benefit of Act 31 of 1976. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the defendant has produced only the mortgage deed but the defendant has admitted in the written statement that he and his brother were having 1.24 acres of wet land and in view of the admission the defendant is not entitled to the benefit of Act 31 of 1976. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the defendant has not produced revenue records nor the patta in support of his plea for claiming the benefit of Act 31 of 1976 and hence it was not open to him to rely upon the mortgage deed to prove the case that he was entitled to the benefit of Act 31 of 1976. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of both Courts below. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The defendant has not preferred cross-objection against the judgment of the lower appellate Court that the suit promissory note was supported by consideration and he has received Rs. 4, 000/- and the finding has become final. The only question that remains is whether the defendant is entitled to the benefit of Act 31 of 1976, the case of the respondent/defendant on the ground that he was a small farmer. The term 'small farmer' is defined under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1976 and is as follows : '3(1) 'small farmer' means a person whose principal means of livelihood is income derived from agricultural land and who holds, whether as owner, tenant, or mortgagee with possession or partly in one capacity and partly in another (i) not more than two units of land in a case where such person is a member of any of the Scheduled Tribes; and (ii) not more than one unit of land in any other case.' Admittedly on the facts of the case, the land held by the defendant fall within Explanation II(iii) of Section 3(1) of the Act as the lands were found to be having perennial irrigation facilities or having facilities for growing more than one irrigated crop in a year. The defendant in order to claim the benefit of Act 31 of 1976 should prove that he was holding less than quarter hectare of land having such facilities. The defendant in order to claim the benefit of Act 31 of 1976 should prove that he was holding less than quarter hectare of land having such facilities. The defendant has produced the mortgage deed which shows the total extent of the land was only 1.171/2 acres. The lands were jointly held by the defendant and his brother. Both were entitled to half share that is, each would be entitled to 581/2 cents. The quarter hectare comes to 61.34 cents and if the defendant's holding comes to 581/2 cents, he will be a small farmer. 6. The defendant in support of his claim has produced the mortgage deed dated 15-6-71. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the deed of mortgage cannot be looked into as the defendant had neither produced the patta nor any revenue records. I am unable to agree. As earlier seen, the mortgage deed was executed on 15-6-1971 much prior to the suit promissory note which was executed on 1-5-1974. I am of the view that the document of mortgage has come into existence prior to the date of execution of the promissory note and it came into existence even before the litigation has commenced or before the litigation was in contemplation. It is not a document made with an eye on litigation claiming the statutory benefit but on the other hand it was in existence much prior to the execution of promissory note and prior to the litigation. Therefore, there is nothing wrong on the part of the both the Courts to place reliance on the deed of mortgage to establish the holding of the land by the defendant, and there is no reason to disbelieve the statement given in the mortgage deed dated 15-6-1971, though the defendant has not produced the patta or the relevant revenue records in support in his claim. 7. In my view and in such circumstances both the Courts have accepted the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant to come to the conclusion that the defendant was holding only 581/2 cents which is less than quarter hectare, and the plaintiff even after having knowledge of the extent of land or the survey number belonging to the defendant has not produced any evidence to displace the claim of the defendant that the defendant's property in the survey number was much more than what was stated in the mortgage deed. Both the Courts have accepted the documentary as well as the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant to come to the conclusion that he was entitled to the benefit of Act 31 of 1976. 8. The counsel for the appellant also urged that the defendant has urged in the written statement that he is owning 1.24 acres of wet land. I have perused the original written statement and the defendant has only stated that he was a small farmer owning half share in an extent of 1.24 acres of dry land and there is no admission of any ownership of wet land. The findings of both the Courts have been arrived on the basis of evidence, both oral and documentary. I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the lower Courts and accordingly the Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. 9. In so far as the second question of law riased on behalf of the plaintiff is concerned in such argument was urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant and hence it is unnecessary to discuss the points arising out of it. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.