JUDGMENT 1. The suit out of which these appeals arise was brought upon a mortgage bond, dated the 14th March 1890. The Plaintiff sued to recover his debt by the sale of the mortgaged property. The bond was executed by one Rajah Dibbya Singh, proprietor of the Patia Raj. He died leaving no son, and so he has been succeeded as owner of the Raj by his brother Rajah Raghunath Deb, the Defendant No. 1. His contention is that the late Rajah had no power to alienate or mortgage his property. The Subordinate Judge has held that the Plaintiff according to the custom of the Raj had no right to alienate his property except for legal necessity and that the Plaintiff has succeeded in showing that there was legal necessity for only Rs. 3,600 of the debt, for which the bond was executed. He has accordingly given him a decree to this extent only. 2. Both the Defendant No. 1 and the Plaintiff appeal. 3. The Plaintiff's pleas are (1) that the late Rajah could alienate his property, (2) that he could alienate it in such a way as to bind his brother, though not his son, if he had had one; (3) that there was legal necessity for the whole of the debt and (1) that the lower Court; should have allowed interest at the bond rate up to the date of realisation. 4. The Defendant's plea is that the late Rajah could not alienate any portion of his property even for legal necessity. 5. It is clear, and is conceded before us, that the late Rajah could have alienated his property if he pleased, were it not for the custom of the Raj, which prohibits alienation. 6. The Subordinate Judge has found that it is contrary to the custom of this particular Raj to alienate the property of the Raj, on the authority of a work, called the "pachis sawal," or "Twenty-five questions" which contains answers to twenty-five questions relating to the customs of the Tributary mehals of Cuttack. The authority of this work is admitted by both sides. It has been acted on by this Court in Nittanund Murdiraj v. Sree Kurun Juggernath 3 W.R. 116 (1865). The authority of this work is admitted by both sides. It has been acted on by this Court in Nittanund Murdiraj v. Sree Kurun Juggernath 3 W.R. 116 (1865). The Subordinate Judge has shown that from the answers to questions 16 and 17 of the pachis sawal the late Rajah could not alienate his property according to the custom of his Raj--having an heir in his brother who is to be regarded as coming within the category of prodhan uttaradhikari or principal heir. It is undoubted that the word prodhan means "principal" and not "direct," or it may be held to include a brother and is not confined to a son. Hence the mortgage is prima facie invalid. 7. But the Subordinate Judge has decided that, as the Defendent No. 1 took the Raj by right of survivorship, as it has been admitted before us by the learned pleader for the Appellant, and as it has already been decided by this Court in the case of Kali Krishna Sarkar v. Raghu Nath Deb ILR 31 Cal. 224 (1904), that he did, the Defendant must succeed to the property subject to the rule of the Mitakshara law that he is liable for debts proved to have been contracted for legal necessity. We see no reason to dissent from him in this view. There is nothing in the pachis sawal to satisfy us that the custom of the Raj against alienation is of such a nature as not to render the Defendant liable for debts contracted by his predecessor for legal necessity. 8. Then, as to the facts, we agree in finding that there is no legal necessity shown for debts to the extent of Rs. 7,400. There is no evidence and even no recital in the deed as to why these debts were contracted. The bond, however, sets forth that the sum of Rs. 3,600 was required to defray the expenses of the marriage of the mortgagor's daughter. The late Rajah had three daughters At the time of execution of the bond he had one unmarried daughter, a girl of about 10 years old. There was therefore a legal necessity to marry her. But it is said she is still unmarried. This, however, would appear to be immaterial, for the creditor discharges his duty, if he shows that there was legal necessity for the loan. There was therefore a legal necessity to marry her. But it is said she is still unmarried. This, however, would appear to be immaterial, for the creditor discharges his duty, if he shows that there was legal necessity for the loan. He is not bound to see to the application of the money. We are therefore of opinion that the Subordinate Judge's decree is right, and that he was justified in giving the Plaintiff a decree to the extent of Rs. 3,600 with interest and in dismissing the rest of his claim. 9. The Plaintiff would seem to us to be entitled to interest at the rate specified in the bond up to the date of realization of this portion of his debt. 10. We accordingly decree the Plaintiff's appeal to this extent with costs in proportion. The Defendants' appeal is dismissed with costs.