Order The petitioner is a landlord who sued the respondent for arrears of rent on a registered lease deed, dated 1st August, 1949, for three years stipulating for the payment of 50 salagais of paddy per annum. The defendant’s case as the learned Small Cause Judge understood it was a plea that there was a distinct subsequent oral arrangement to vary this contract of lease by a fresh oral agreement under which the respondent was liable only to pay varam rent on the basis of some undefined share in the produce. The petitioner raised a contention that such an agreement was in violation of section 92 of the Evidence Act and not covered by proviso. The learned Small Cause Judge held that as this lease deed for agricultural purposes was not compulsorily registrable Proviso 4 did not rule out the evi dence of a subsequent oral agreement. Proviso 4 reads as follows:- “The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents.” The Small Cause Judge has clearly misread this proviso which makes an exception in cases in which such contract grant or disposition of property has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents. It does not exclude documents which are not compulsorily registrable. If a document has been registered that is sufficient for purposes of Proviso 4. So evidence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to modify this registered lease deed is inadmissible according to law. Mr. Ramachandran relies on Karampalli Unni Kurup v. Thekku Vittil Muthorakutti1, in which the defendant relied on a receipt by the plaintiff to accept payment at a reduced rate in full discharge in respect of one of the years. If there is evidence as regards discharge under any contract even though it be at variance with the terms of the contract, it is perfectly admissible in law and if as Mr. If there is evidence as regards discharge under any contract even though it be at variance with the terms of the contract, it is perfectly admissible in law and if as Mr. Ramachandran urges, the defendant has in his possession receipts given by the plaintiff which shows that the latter received varam rent in full discharge for any particular year it is certainly admissible in evidence in order to prove the discharge of rent for that year. With these observations the petition is allowed. General evidence to prove a subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify this registered lease must be ruled out as inadmissible. I make no order as to costs on this petition. K.C.----- Petition allowed.