1904.] 
G. N. Dutt —History of the Hatwa Haj. 
223 
tiff than to have pointed oat and cited as witnesses, parties and members 
of the family who have received part of the Husseypore estate in any 
previous partition, bat this obvious and facile mode of proving their 
own case and of utterly upsetting that of their opponents has not been 
attempted. 
We have held that there was family custom down to Fatteh Shahee’s 
time, by which the estate devolved to the eldest male heir. Govern¬ 
ment took the estate subject to the custom, for as there was no extinc¬ 
tion of the Raj there was no extinction of the custom which was inci¬ 
dent of the Raj. The Government then handed over the same estate as 
they received to Chutterdharee. He received it subject to the custom. 
Those who claim through him, as both the parties to this suit do, are 
bound by the custom by which he was himself bound. The heirs of 
Fatteh Shahee might no doubt have attacked the title of Chutterdharee 
on the ground of his not being entitled to the Estate by custom, but it 
is not competent to Chutterdharee’s heirs to raise the same contention. 
Whatever defect might have attached to the origin of Chutterdhar¬ 
ee’s will, it has been subsequently finally established by not having been 
impeached for half a century, and it is now as good as if it had never 
been capable of question. Acquiring as he did an estate subject to a 
particular custom, and having himself not done anything destructive 
of that custum, his heirs take it subject to the custom. 
The Judge thiuks that Rs 2,000 a month is proper allowance, but 
this seems to us out of all proportion. Besides the appellant there are 
two others as near relatives who are equally entitled to maintenance. If 
they are to get Rs 2,000 each also, the defendant will have to pay, by way 
of maintenance, Rs 72,000 yearly. The estate is no doubt a valuable 
one, but the revenue payable to Govermment, which of course bears 
some proportion to the yearly gross income, is only Rs 1,73,997. Seventy- 
two thousand as maintenance out of such an estate, or out of any estate, 
seems to us decidedly high to pay as maintenance to these junior members 
of the family, and we think that as Rajah Chutterdharee, during his 
minority, was only allowed by Govermeut, who were his gurdians, Rs 1,000 
a month for his maintenance and state, the plaintiff can very well sup¬ 
port himself and keep up the position of his rank upon the same sum. 
We, therefore, halve the allowance which the Judge awarded to him. 
Extract of the Judgment of the Lords of the Judicial Committee 
of the Privy Council, on the the appeal of Baboo Bir Protap Shahee, and 
cross appeal from the High Court of Judicature at Fort William, in 
Bengal, delivered March 4th, 1868. 
