1. The plaintiffs preferred this second appeal before this Court

2. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for recovery of Rs. 1550.00, the unpaid por-tion of the consideration money covered by the sale deed dated 6-12-1962 (Ext. 2/a), which was executed by their father Deonarain Singh in favour of Baldeo Singh (the defendant). The consideration money mentioned in Ext. 2/a was Rs. 2.000.00, out of which Rs. 450.00 was paid by Baldeo Singh (Vendee) to Deonarain Singh (Vendor).

3. The defence of defendant Baldeo Singh was that Ext. 2/a was a deed of exchange, and not a deed of sale. On 6-12-1962, the defendant executed another registered sale deed (Ext. 2) in favour of Deonarain Singh (father of the plaintiffs) in respect of 13 decimals of plot no. 364, 1 decimal of plot no. 363 and 21 1/2 deci-mals of plot no. 435 for Rs. 1500.00. The consideration money of Ext. 2 was not paid to Baldeo Singh. Hence another registered sale deed (Ext.2/a) was execu-ted on 6-12-1962 by Deonarain Singh (father of the plaintiffs) in favour of Baldeo Singh for a consideration of Rs. 2000.00 in respect of 13 decimals. It is admitted by both the parties that the defendant paid Rs. 450.00 out of Rs. 2,000.00. The case of the defendant further was that the balance of the consideration money covered by Ext. 2/a, that is Rupees 1500.00, was adjusted towards the consi-deration money covered by Ext. 2.

4. On these facts, both the courts be-low concurrently held as follows:

(i) Both the sale deeds dated 6-12-1962 (Exts. 2 and 2/a) were deeds of exchange;

(ii) It was agreed between the parties not to act upon the sale deeds; and,

(iii) Defendant Baldeo Singh did not receive the consideration amount, that is Rs. 1500.00, covered by Ext. 2 and the said amount was adjusted towards the consideration money of the sale deed covered by Ext. 2/a.

5. In the ordinary course, this Court is precluded from interfering with the concurrent findings of facts. Hence, in view of the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below, I shall not interfere with the same.

6. The short point for consideration in this appeal is:-

Whether oral evidence is admissible on the point of exchange in view of the provisions of Ss. 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act? When the terms of a contract have been reduced to the form of a document, S. 91 excludes oral evidence of the terras of such contract. Section 92 excludes oral evidence for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from the terms of a written contract.

7 In the present case, the case of the defendant was that it was agreed between the parties that the documents (Exts. 2 and 2/a) will not be treated as sale deeds, but as exchange deeds. Under proviso (1) to S. 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, the documents (Exts. 2 and 2/a) can be invali-dated on the ground that these were not sale deeds, but were deeds of exchange. In my opinion, this is a question of fact. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that these two documents (Exts. 2 and 2/a) are deeds of exchange. On the basis of the oral testimonies of the wit-nesses examined on behalf of the defen-dant, I hold that the parties agreed not to act upon Exts. 2 and 2/a as sale deeds but they agreed to treat as deeds of exchange. Section 92 of the Evidence Act excludes oral evidence for the purpose of contradicting varying, adding to, or sub-tracting from, terms of any written con-tract, but it does not exclude parties to lead evidence about the nature of the documents. The oral testimonies of the witnesses in respect of the nature of the document is admissible under provisos (1) and (2) of S. 92 of the Evidence Act.

8. In para 21 of its judgment, the trial Court held as follows:

"These two issues have been taken up together and in view of the discussions made above, it is clear that the documents were exchange deeds and that Rs. 1500.00 was adjusted and it was not paid in cash as alleged by the plaintiffs to Baldeo Singh. As regards the sale