224 
[No. 2, 
G-. N. Dutt —History of the Hatwa Raj. 
Present. 
Lord Cairns. 
Sir James W. Col vile. 
Sir Edward Vaughan Williams. 
Sir Richard T. Kinderslay. 
The Judgment of the Zillah Judge, Mr. Wilkins, which was given 
on 24th of April, 1860 (Appendix Page 158) found that the family cus¬ 
tom, according to which the estate was impartible, and descendible to the 
eldest male heir, subsisted at, and up to, the time of Fatteh Sahee, that 
this custom was not abrogated by his expulsion, the retention of the 
property by Government, and the grant of it to Chutterdharee ; and that 
the estate was in his hands an impartible Raj, descendible to his next 
male heir alone, and therefore on the renunciation of Ugur Partap to 
the respondent. The Judge made no distinction in this respect between 
the moveable and immoveable property, and on the above ground decreed 
in favour of the respondent. He held, however, that the alleged consign¬ 
ment or transfer of the 5th of March, and the will, were not well prov¬ 
en. And he decreed an allowance of Rs. 2, 000, per mensem to each of 
the plaintiffs, viz., the appellant and his brother. 
The Judgment of the High Court on appeal from this decree is at 
page 17 of the 2nd Record, and is dated 24th April, 1863. That Court 
also held that the Raj was originally impartible, and descendible by 
custom to the eldest male heir alone ; and that it did not lose this charac¬ 
ter on its restoration to Chutterdharee. It denied that there had been 
or could have been any confiscation in the proper sense of the term, and 
in Mr. Justice Levinge’s separate note at page 26, this point is more 
fully argued. But the High Court differing therein from the Zillah 
Judge, affirmed the validity of the will. It also reduced the allowance 
to each of the plaintiffs to Rs 1,000 per mensem. 
Upon the whole, then, their Lordships have come to the conclusion 
that the Courts below were right in holding that the estate granted to 
Chutterdharee in 1790, was the Raj of Hussaipore, and that the right of 
succession to it from him was to be governed by law or custom which 
regulated its descent in the line of his ancestors. 
It follows, then, that either by the special law of inheritance, or 
by the will, the respondent was entitled to the estate of Hussaipore, 
and to whatever wealth the late Maharaja could dispose of by his will. 
With respect to the question raised in either appeal touching the 
amount of the Babuana allowance, and the costs of the proceedings in 
Courts below, their Lordships have only to say, that they see no 
sufficient ground for interfering with the discretion exercised on those 
