1. The elaborate argument addressed to us by Mr. Venkatarama Sastriar may be shortly disposed of. The partition-deed is silent regarding the paddy which is now sought to be divided. Consequently evidence is admissible under Clause (2) of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. We do not accede to the contention that the use of the expression moveables in connection with live stock makes it clear that even paddy was divided.
2. As regards the argument that the document is registered and contains a clause of mutual release between the parties and that, therefore, oral evidence is not admissible to add to its terms, it is enough to say that it is well settled that notwithstanding the apparent tenor of a deed of partition, it is open to parties to prove either that the partition was incomplete or that certain properties were left out for future division.
3. The decisions in Fathuma Bivi Ammal v. Hanumantha Row 17 M.L.J. 296 and Lachmi Chand Jhawar v. Hemendra Prosad Ghosh 18 C.W.N. 1260, to which our attention was drawn, related to negotiable instruments. As these documents were intended to pass from hand to hand they ought to be strictly construed. Courts should not allow evidence to be adduced which will have the effect of adding new terms to such formal documents. That principle does not affect the present case. This is the only point argued. We agree with the lower Appellate Court and dismiss the second appeal with costs.