The Munsif seems to think that the case is covered by the Division Bench ruling of this Court in Abdul Kadir v. Noor Mohammad Sait. 1959 Ker LT 247 : (AIR 1959 Ker 400) and proviso (4) to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. I am afraid that both these conclusions are wrong.

2. The decision of this Court states in paragraph 4 that the coolicharth before the Division Bench was not registered, so that the case would not come within the exception to proviso (4). Proviso (4) contemplates three situations : (1) where a transaction has been reduced into writing though the law does not require it to be in writing, when evidence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement modifying or rescinding the transaction is admissible; (2) where a matter has been reduced into writing since the law requires it to be in writing, when no evidence can be given of any subsequent oral agreement rescinding or modifying the transaction : and (3) where the document has been registered whether or not registration is compulsory under the law. when also no evidence can be allowed to prove a subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify the transaction. The Munsif has extracted a passage from the judgment