Arnold White, C.J.

1. As regards the question of fact in dispute, namely, what were the terms of the compromise entered into between the Vakils of the parties in Civil Suit No. 155 of 1908, I think it is clear on the evidence that one of the terms of that compromise was that the present defendants were to deliver to the present plaintiff the house, the possession of which is asked for in the present suit. The two Vakils, who appeared for the parties in Suit No. 155 of 1908, gave evidence in this suit and their evidence is in substantial agreement that one of the terms of the compromise in the suit of 1908 was that delivery of the house in question should be given by the present defendants to the present plaintiff.

2. The point was taken on behalf of the appellant that inasmuch as the compromise in the suit of 1908 was reduced into writing, under the provisions of Section 92 of the Evidence Act oral evidence for the purpose of adding terms to the compromise which are not to be found in the written document is inadmissible. The first answer to that contention appears to me to be that the compromise in the suit of 1908 was not reduced into writing. The appellant relies upon an e