JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the fifth son and the second son's son of one Durgadut Singh, who, on the 14th April 1892, executed a mortgage bond in favour of the Defendant No. 1. The latter was then the brother of the Maharajah of Durbhanga, but he is now the Maharajah of Durbhanga, having succeeded to the title and property of Maharajah on the death of his brother. The Plaintiff No. 1 is now dead leaving no male issue, but as the right to sue still subsists in the other Plaintiff, his death in no way affects this appeal. The Defendant No. 1 on two former occasions sued for the interest due on his bond, making the present Plaintiffs parties Defendant. Those suits were Nos. 83 of 1894 and 146 of 1895. In those suits the present Plaintiffs, being minors, were represented by guardians ad litem. The Defendant No. 1 obtained decrees in both the suits--as, also, in suit No. 114 of 1899, which has led to appeal No. 164 of 1901, in which we have recorded a separate judgment. The present suit was brought to set aside the decrees in the first two suits on the grounds: (1) that the Plaintiff's guardians ad litem were negligent in their duties, and had colluded with the Defendant No. 1; and (2) that the property, pergunnah Jabdi, against which decrees were given in those suits, being babuana property, is inalienable, and not liable to sale or transfer of any kind. 2. The Subordinate Judge was given the Plaintiffs a decree. 3. The Defendant No. 1 appeals. On his behalf it has been contended before us: (1) that there is no ground for holding that the guardians ad litem were negligent in their duties; and (2) that the Subordinate Judge is altogether in error in deciding that babuana property such as is in dispute in this case, is inalienable. 4. We entirely agree with the first of these contentions. It seems to us that there is no reason whatever for thinking that the Plaintiff's guardians ad litem in the previous suits were guilty of collusion or negligence. The guardian ad litem in the first suit. No. 83 of 1894, was a pleader Babu Shakeshwar Persad, now dead. 4. We entirely agree with the first of these contentions. It seems to us that there is no reason whatever for thinking that the Plaintiff's guardians ad litem in the previous suits were guilty of collusion or negligence. The guardian ad litem in the first suit. No. 83 of 1894, was a pleader Babu Shakeshwar Persad, now dead. There is no evidence in this record with regard to what he did, or the defence he set up, but there is nothing which leads us to conclude that he neglected the minor Plaintiff's interests. The guardian ad litem in the second suit, No. 146 of 1895, was another pleader, Babu Jnanendra Mohun Dutt. He has been examined, and he deposes that when appointed guardian ad litem, he at once went to Babu Durgadut Singh and Babu Amarendra Singh, the respective fathers of the present Plaintiffs, and received full instructions from them. He, also, took a copy of the written statement filed by Sukeshwar Babu in the previous suit. Babu Durgadut Singh, the principal Defendant, admitted to him having executed the bond, and in his deposition he states as follows:--"I filed answer in that suit in accordance with the instructions which I had received from Babu Durgadut Singh and Babu Amarendra Singh." We believe this to be perfectly true, and we disbelieve Amarendra Singh, father of Plaintiff No. 2, who declined to accept the guardianship and now affects ignorance of everything. We can see no reason for concluding that there was any negligence on the part of either of the guardians ad litem in the previous suits, and that being so, the Subordinate Judge was clearly in error in setting aside the decrees in those suits. 5. It has been urged for the Respondents that the guardians should have impeached the bond as purporting to transfer inalienable babuana property. But we are of opinion that the suits being on the basis of an instrument in which the nature of the mortgaged property had not been specified, such a defence could not naturally arise. Durgadut Singh and his sons did not take up this line of defence, and it is not to be expected that the guardians of the present Plaintiffs should do so. Durgadut Singh and his sons did not take up this line of defence, and it is not to be expected that the guardians of the present Plaintiffs should do so. But however this may be, we are Satisfied that the two previous suits were properly defended, and that no collusion with the mortgagee, or negligence, can be attributed to the guardians ad litem. The decrees in the former suits cannot, therefore, be set aside. 6. The second and main contention in this appeal is that babuana property being alienable, the bond, dated the 14th April 1892, can be enforced against the mortgagor Durgadut Singh and his male descendants, including the Plaintiffs. As to this, also, we think the judgment of the Subordinate Judge cannot be supported. Although the original deed executed by Maharajah Madho Singh, granting pergunnah Jabdi (the property now in dispute) to his son Babu Kirat Singh by way of babuana, or maintenance, has not been produced in evidence, we find it to be an admitted fact that the grant was made in the year 1807 in accordance with the kulachar or family custom of the Durbhanga Raj. Babuana grants, and the grant now in question are alluded to in the Privy Council case of Goneshdut Singh v. Moheshuar Singh 6 Moo. I. A. 164 (1855). The nature of babuana property can be ascertained without difficulty from the evidence and admissions of the parties before us. It is property granted to the junior male members of the Raj family to be enjoyed by them in lieu of money maintenance, but subject to the proprietary rights of the grantor Maharajah and to his ultimate claim as reversioner on extinction of the grantee's descendants in the male line. There is no reason to suppose, that the kulachar, or family custom in question, originated not earlier than the year 1807; but it is clear that the head of the family remains responsible for the payment of the Government Revenue and retains his position as the recorded proprietor of the villages assigned to the Babus. This appears from the Rajgi Sanads of the year 1807 and 1839, respectively, mentioned in the judgment of the Court below; they are Exs. This appears from the Rajgi Sanads of the year 1807 and 1839, respectively, mentioned in the judgment of the Court below; they are Exs. 7 and 8; and, we also rely on this point on the evidence of Ekradeswar Singh and of the Defendant No. 1, the present Maharajah of Durbhanga, who defines "babuana" as a grant of the 'usufruct of pergunnahs in lieu of maintenance' It is further apparent that the grantee is bound to pay to the Maharajah the Government Revenue which the latter pays into the Collectorate, and that this obligation can be enforced by suit. 7. Such being the nature of babuana property, we see no reason to refuse the recognition of a right to alienate that property subsisting in the holder, subject only to the contingent interest of the Maharajah, the contingency being remote in a country where the line of male descendants can be reinforced by the practice of adoption. The estate created by these grants is, therefore, virtually, an absolute estate. To refuse the right to deal with and transfer such an estate would be tantamount to placing persons sui juris in the category of proprietors under disability and allowing them to incur obligations, it may be to the full value of the estate, without responsibility --for the same and in disregard of their inherent right to alienate. 8. It is true that for many years after the grant of pergunnah Jabdi, made in the year 1807, there were no alienations of babuana property, but in, and after, the year 1891 we find eighteen such transactions. The Subordinate Judge says that these dispositions do not establish the fact that babuana properties are alienable, and his argument is that 'the alienations were made long after the grants, and with the exception of one, all were in favour of Defendant No. 1.' He is in error here; for we find that two were in favour of a third party Ganga Persad. It seems to us immaterial to enquire into the motives of the Defendant No. 1, in lending money on the security of these babuana properties. He took the risk, and it was only natural for him to come to the assistance of his extravagant and impoverished relative Durgadut Singh. The Maharajah was severely cross-examined on this point. It seems to us immaterial to enquire into the motives of the Defendant No. 1, in lending money on the security of these babuana properties. He took the risk, and it was only natural for him to come to the assistance of his extravagant and impoverished relative Durgadut Singh. The Maharajah was severely cross-examined on this point. We are of opinion that it was unreasonable to expect him to know full details of the course of dealing with babuana property adopted by the junior members of his family and to put to him hypothetical cases involving considerations with which we are now dealing after a protracted litigation between the parties. 9. It is worthy of note that the witness, Amarendra Singh; father of the Plaintiff No. 2, when questioned on this subject, deposed :--'I have made no enquiry as to who from among the Babus have hypothecated, mortgaged in Sudburna, and sold their babuana property. My father Babu Durgadut Singh is at home. I see him every day. I have come here without making enquiry from Durgadut Singh about the transfer of babuana property.' There can be no doubt that the Babus have regarded and dealt with their babuana property as alienable, in all respects, and there is nothing to show that it is not. The necessity for raising money has only recently become acute owing to the increase in the number of the original grantee's descendants and the indebtedness of Babu Durgadut Singh. We therefore allow this appeal with costs.