1. The late Mr. Oliver, whom the respondents (defendants) represent, took in 1878 a lease of certain land vested in the temple represented by the appellant (plaintiff) under Exhibit A a registered instrument, the annual rent reserved thereunder being Rs. 106-4-0. In 1886 Mr. Oliver requested the then trustee of the temple to agree to a reduction of the rent to Rs. 50 per annum. The trustee agreed accordingly, but the agreement was not reduced to writing. From that time up to the institution of this suit in 1895, Rs. 50 only were paid and accepted as the rent payable per annum. The lower Courts in effect held that the respondents were not precluded by proviso 4 to Section 92 of the Evidence Act, from proving the agreement to modify the terms of the registered lease in so far as the amount of rent was concerned. In supporting the decision of the lower Courts, the learned vakil for the respondents contended, if we understood him correctly, that in cases like the present though no express oral agreement rescinding or modifying the terms of a written instrument could be proved, yet that an agreement to be implied from the acts and conduct of the parties could be proved and apart