JUDGMENT L.G. Mukerji, Actg. C.J. and Rachhpal Singh, J. - This is a short appeal and arises out of a suit brought for recovery of money on foot of a hundi for Rs. 5,000/- 2. The case for the Plaintiff-Respondent was that on 7th of July, 1927, the Defendant No. 1 took in cash Rs. 17,000/- from the Plaintiff and on the next day the Defendant No 2 executed four hundis, three for Rs. 5,000/- each and one for Rs, 2,000/-, which were endorsed by the Defendant No. 1 in favour of the Plaintiff. The suit was against both the Defendants. The. Plaintiff gave credit for Rs. 12,000/- and said that two hundis of the value of Rs. 5,000/- each and one of Rs. 2,000/- had been returned to the Defendants. The Plaintiff claimed Rs. 5,000/- and interest on a11 the four hundis, including the hundis which she had returned. 3. The Defendant No. 1, who alone is the Appellant before us, contested the suit on the allegation that the difference between the parties had been settled by the arbitration of Mr. Durga Prasad, own brother of the Plaintiff, and that it was agreed that, if the Defendants paid Rs. 12,000/-, all the four hundis would be regarded as paid up and that Rs. 9,000/- was paid but there was a delay in payment of Rs. 3,000/- but that delay did not matter. 4. The court below considered whether there was any agreement between the parties that the Rs. 3,000/- that had to be paid after giving credit for Rs. 9,000/- already paid was to be paid on a particular date and at a particular hour and in default the whole sum of Rs. 5,000/- had to be paid The Court found that the date and hour were of the essence of the contract and accordingly decreed the whole claim. 5. In appeal it was contended first that the date and hour were not of the essence of the contract and secondly that in any case the Plaintiff was not entitled to interest on anything but the hundi of Rs. 5,000/-. 6. On the first point, it appears to us, that the contention is concluded by a Full Bench ruling of this Court in Collector of Etah Vs. 5,000/-. 6. On the first point, it appears to us, that the contention is concluded by a Full Bench ruling of this Court in Collector of Etah Vs. Kishori Lal and Another The Defendants' case depends on the statement of Dwarka (Durga ?) Prasad, who is a Defendants' witness, and besides he is a trutsworthy witness. He is Plaintiff's brother. He stated that he did not give any award but he brought the parties to an agreement and the agreement was to the effect that, if a sum of Rs. 12,000/- was paid in a lump sum, the entire debt would be treated as cancelled. The sum of Rs. 12,000/- was to be paid in hard cash. But the Defendants brought only a sum of Rs. 9,000/-. This was accepted on condition that the balance of Rs. 3,000/- would be paid by 25th of October, 1928, at 10 A.M. The sum of Rs. 3,000/- did not arrive within the limited time. 7. If this was the agreement between the parties that the hundi of Rs. 5,000/- which alone remained outstanding would be deemed to be satisfied on payment of Rs. 3,000/-it was a contract which derogated from the original contract as contained in the hundi. It was held in the Full Bench case that any such contract could not be proved by oral evidence. A hundi is a document which must be in writing, and, therefore, this case falls within the four corners of the ruling. Without going into the merits of the case, we hold that oral evidence was not admissible to prove the kind of contract set up by the Defendant-Appellant. 8. The second point seems to be good and must be allowed. The Plaintiff admits that she has returned two hundis for Rs. 5,000/- each and one hundi for Rs. 2,000/-. This means that all claims under those three hundis have been paid up. In that case it is not open to the Plaintiff to claim interest on the entire sum of Rs. 17,000/-. 9. We allow the appeal in part, modify the decree of the court below and instead of awarding the interest which had been awarded by the court below we award Rs. 5,000/- principal and interest on that sum only payable from the due date of the hundi which is 3rd January, 1928, at six per cent. 17,000/-. 9. We allow the appeal in part, modify the decree of the court below and instead of awarding the interest which had been awarded by the court below we award Rs. 5,000/- principal and interest on that sum only payable from the due date of the hundi which is 3rd January, 1928, at six per cent. per annum till the date of the decree of the court below. From that date, on the entire sum thus decreed and on proportionate costs, hereby allowed to the Plaintiff by us, interest would be paid at 6 per cent, per annum till the date of realisation. In this Court and in court below parties will receive and pay costs in proportion to their respective success and failure. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *[In it the Full Bench consisting of Mukerji, Banerji and Young, JJ., ruled that under proviso (4) of Section 92, Evidence Act, in certain cases a subsequent oral agreement to modify any previous contract may be proved, but this is not permitted where the law requires that the terms of the contract should be reduced into writing, as in the case of a mortgage or where the terms of the contract have been registered. By proviso (4) oral evidence is entirely inadmissible to vary or modify the terms of such a contract--Ed]