JUDGMENT
1. The appellant in this case was a purchaser of an impartible estate situated in Chota Nagpur, the ‘respondent being, one of the younger brothers of the transferor. The suit by the respondent was for the recovery of a 1/3rd share of the property transferred. The learned Munsif dismissed his suit. The learned Subordinate Judge, on the ground that the respondent was entitled to maintenance but of the property alienated, held that in equity the respondent was entitled to a decree for a share in the property in lieu of the maintenance that he had lost by the transfer, and in this view of the case gave a decree for a 1/4th share of the property transferred. Against that decision there is an -appeal and a cross-appeal.
2. In our view the appeal must succeed. The authority quoted by the learned Subordinate Judge [Durgadut Singh v. Ramesh war Singh 4 Ind. Cas. 2 : 36 C. 943 : 13 C.W.N. 1013 : 6 M.L.T. 68 : 19 M.L.J. 567 : 10 C.L.J. 233 : 6 A.L.J. 847 : 11 Bom. L.R. 901 : 36 I.A. 176 (P.C.)] cannot be interpreted in the way suggested by him, and indeed it was interpreted in a directly contrary fashion in the Munsif’s Court. Where there has already been a grant made for maintenance from impartible property, we may concede’ that the transfer of the property would not destroy the grant made, but where it is alleged that the transfer of such impartible property is subject to the right of maintenance that is in the younger members of the family, that suggestion must be supported by proof of a custom existent in the family. It is brought to our notice that there are still other properties left with the head of the family. It will be open to the plaintiff to institute any suit against his own family for suitable maintenance. The appeal must be decreed, and the cross-appeal dismissed, and “the plaintiff’s suit dismissed in all Courts with costs.