JUDGMENT : Richards, J. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover money under the following circumstances. The parties are brothers. The plaintiff alleges that in a suit for partition between himself and the defendant, a compromise was arrived at by which immovable property, consisting of a house, was divided in certain proportions and as specified in a map. A decree was made in accordance with this compromise. He alleges that part of the terms was that he (the plaintiff) should receive a sum of Rs. 600 odd, from the defendant in order to equalise the lots. The agreement of compromise was silent as to this. It is said that the reason why this part of the agreement was not reduced to writing or made portion of the decree was because the money was at that time in the hands of a third party and it was considered that the money would be paid down. The court of first instance found that the story of the plaintiff was substantially correct, that he did get a smaller lot than his brother and there was this agreement of payment to equalise the lots. The court accordingly gave the plaintiff a decree for the amount claimed. 2. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge overruled the decision of the court below and dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding that the plaintiff could not give oral evidence of the agreement to pay money to equalise the lots, having regard to the provisions of section 92 of the Evidence Act. The plaintiff comes here in second appeal contending that the decision of the lower appellate court was not correct in law. Reliance is placed upon proviso 2 to section 92 of the Evidence Act. Section 92 is as follows: “When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms.” 3. Proviso (2) is as follows:— “The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. Proviso (2) is as follows:— “The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document.” 4. In the present case, the document which the parties reduced to writing was a very formal deed providing for the division up between the brothers of their property, and also as to how the costs of the suit should be borne. It was certainly a document of considerable “formality.” Furthermore, we do not think it can be said that there was any separate oral agreement. The alleged agreement as to payment of money for equalisation of shares must have been part and parcel of the very contract, the terms of which the parties reduced to writing. Under these circumstances, we think that the decree of the court below was correct and must be affirmed. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.