Jackson, J.

1. Defendants 1 and 2 and two persons Kesavan and Mottayya Samban mortgaged to Ammani Mudali: (1) defendant 1s items 1 to 4; (2) defendant 2s item 5, and (3) the holding of Kesavan and Mottayya Samban.

2. Plantiff has bought the Kesavan Mottayya Samban holding.

3. Ammani Mudalis assignee filed O. S. No. 173 of 1929, and obtained the decree Ex. F. When it was executed, plaintiff paid off the whole mortgage debt. He now sues for contribution by virtue of Section 82, T. P. Act.

4. Defendant 2 remains ex parte. Defendant 1 pleads that in the original mortgage by an oral agreement he was only a surety and it was agreed with the mortgagee that his property would not be liable to contribution.

5. The lower appellate Court has upheld this plea and hence the appeal.

6. When the terms of the mortgage contract were reduced as required by law to writing it is difficult to see how an oral agreement varying those terms can be admitted in evidence. No proviso to Section 92, Evidence Act, saves what, in fact runs directly counter to its main provision. It is hardly necessary to fortify this proposition by case law, but Krishna Chandra Barman v. Sanat Kumar Das [1917]44 Cal. 162 is di