Phillips, J.

1. The only question of law that is raised in this appeal is whether the Subordinate Judge was right in admitting oral evidence of a purchase by 1st defendant from D.W. 2. The sale deed was registered but only a copy was produced in Court which was held to be inadmissible and it is now argued that oral evidence of that sale is inadmissible under Section 91 of the Evidence Act. That section provides (Section 91 quoted.) If it were necessary in this case to prove the terms of the sale that section would undoubtedly be applicable but all that was sought to be proved was the factum of purchase by 1st Defendant. The terms on which that purchase was made were quite irrelevant and had not to be proved in the present case. It is however argued that although Section 91 only prohibits evidence of the terms of "such a contract, grant or other disposition of property," yet in regard to the further class of cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a writing no evidence shall be given in proof of such matter i.e., any evidence not only of the terms of such matter but also of the existence of such matter is altogether excluded. No authority has