Gopi Nath And Anr. vs Rup Ram And Ors. on 21 March, 1930
But in a subsequent case of Kanhai Lal v. Mahadeo Prasad [1913] 18 I.C. 389.which corresponds to Ram Krishna v. Anand Krishna A.I.R. 1929 All. 578, the same view was elaborated, and it was laid down that Section 92, Evidence Act, prevented such an enquiry and that proviso (1) to that section did not entitle a party to the instrument to prove any such intention as would be at variance with the terms of the document.