John Wallis, C.J.

1. A subsequent agreement to take less than is due under a registered mortgage is clearly an agreement modifying the terms of a written contract; and, if it has to be proved, oral evidence is inadmissible under the 4th proviso to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is designed to protect parties to registered instruments from false cases of subsequent modification of the original contract being set up and supported by oral evidence. If the subsequent agreement in this case has to be proved, oral evidence is clearly inadmissible. The contention however, is that it has not to be proved, as it is admitted in the pleadings. Part II of the Evidence Act deals with proof, and Chapter III, which is the first chapter of Part II, with Facts which need not be proved." Under Section 58 of this chapter, among the facts which need not be proved, are facts admitted in the pleadings, such as the subsequent agreement now in question. Evidence is tendered in proof of facts in issue; and no question of the admissibility of evidence, oral or documentary, arises when proof is dispensed with in consequence of an admission in the pleadings, either under Section 58 or und