VYAVASTHA”.IDARPANA. 589 The above report does not give all the details : the report published by Sir Thomas strange in therefore added to supply the deficiency. This is as follows ;— Appellant is the uncle of respondent, the present Raja of Nuddea; and claims from him one-fourth of that zemindaree, upon the ground of his being one of the four sons of Itaja" Krishna Chandra (the grandfather of respondent,) and therefore entitled to one-fourth of his landed property, agreeably to the Hindu law. It appears that Itaja Krishna Chandra bcqueathed by two wills (the one in the Bengalee, and the other the Persian language) the whole of the semindaree to his eldest son (Raja') Shib Chandra, who accordingly succeeded to the zemindaree, and obtained a Dewanny Sunud from Covernment. Raja Shib Chandra also bequeathed the whole of the zemindaree by will to his cliest son (Itajay Ishwar Chandra, the respondent. The authenticity of the above wills is established; and a majority of the Pandits referred to have declared them valid according to the Hindu law. It further appears from the genealogical table of the family, dilivered in by the Ka'nu ngos, that the cemindaree of Nuddea has never been divided ; and by the 137th article of the Regulations, it is directed that, in eases of succession to zein ind trees, the judge do ascertain whether they have been *ated by Bay نام teneral usage of the pergunnah where the disputed land is situated, or by any particular usagof the fກmily suing ; and do consider in his decision the weight due to the evidence on this head. It appears therefore that the appellant's claim is contrary both to law and the usage of the zemindarce The appellant, however, is entitled to a maintenance; and the judge has awarded to him the further sum of Sicca Rupees 250 per month, to be paid from the cem induree, in addition to the sum of 250 Rupees before received by him ; uron the ground that the former sum was inadequate to his situation and circumstances.* 23d February 1792. (Strange's H. L. vol. II. pp. 435, 436). G. H. Barlow, Eraminer and ரோஜம் the Sudder Dewanny Adarsus.
- . It was the case of one of the great zemindarces of the country, which the testator, the Rajas, having enjoyed during his life under the will of lis father, to the exclusion of his three brothers, left by will to his son ; against whom one of his uncles instituted a suit for the recovery of 黑 fourth share, disputing the right of the grandfather, so to dispose of property that was ancestral. The question was discused upon the will of the grandfather of the defendant, which appears to have been an assigninent in trust, by way of gift to his eldest son, the elder brother of the plaintiff, in contemplation of death; providing to a certain degree for his other sons, but very inadequately, compar9! with what they would been entitled to had they locen allowed to succeed to their legal shares. The latter of the two wills recited that the zemindaree never had been divided ; but that, pursuant to the custom of the country, it had always been enjoyed by the eldest son ; in consideration of which the testator, had left, it to his eldest son, in the presence of the Brahmins of Nuddea, whom he had assembled to be witnesses of the gift. Acoordingly, the defendant contended, independent of the will, that the estate in question. according to the nature of it, was his, in right of inheritance; and it was proved in the cause in point of fact, that it had alwas been enjoyed by one son, in exclusion of the rest, though not uniformly by the eldest ; but sometimes by the one deemed ...the te to manage a property of that description, pursuant to the spirit of the Hindu law in that respect. The mears, resorted to by the Court of Appeal, for information as to the the -law, appears to have been, as extensive as possible; references having been made, not only to numerous Pandits named by either party, but to the Fahd... of the several eourts in the provinces, as well ás to those at thõ Presidency; among which lattor was JAGANNasrot TARKAPANCHA’NAN the compiler of the Digest. And, though f! inajority, including JAd.ANNA'tır, were iu favour of the acts of the two testators, upon the general ground of the competency of a Hindu to dispose of his property, as he pleases, without regard to the nature of it, whether ancestral or acquired, public or private, yet the Court, affirming the decree which had been in favour of the defendant, expressly made the nature of the property, and the course in which it had always
