1. In this second appeal two questions have been raised, first, that the receipt (Exhibit A) not being registered could not be admitted in evidence, being a document which purported to affect the terms of the mortgage; and, secondly, assuming that it could be looked at, the release really means that there is a release of four years for which payment has been made, and not a waiver in future.
2. As regards the first point, we think, the matter is concluded by the decision of the Full Bench in Jiwan Ali Beg v. Basa Mal 9 A. 108 : A.W.N. (1886) 310 which has now been enacted into law by Clause in of Section 17 of the Registration Act. We, therefore, think that registration was not necessary and that the receipt operates as a full acquittance for the money already paid.
3. As regards the question of waiver, the words contained in the document are a clear waiver. They say be it known that I release you from the liability to pay compound interest as written in the said mortgage-bond;' and we can find nothing in the law or in any authority which would require such waiver to be registered; although under the terms of Section 92 of the Evidence Act it undoubtedly must be in writing. In the present case this question is rather an academical one, as the difference in the decree would be a matter of about 8 annas. We, therefore, do not think it necessary to disturb in any way the decree of the lower Appellate Court, and the appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.