JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has arisen out of suit brought by Plaintiffs, Respondents in this Court, claiming arrears due on account of annual britti payable to them, and for declaration that the Plaintiffs were entitled from the time of their predecessors, to get their annual britti of Rs. 4,000 from the Kasimbazar Raj Estate in two equal instalments, and that the payment of the britti aforesaid, was a charge upon the Kasimbazar Raj Estate. The case of the Plaintiffs was that they, the Thakurs of Srikhanda, from the time of the predecessors since the foundation of the Kasimbazar Raj family, had been the gurus of the family. The deities Sree Sree Radha Gobinda Jiu and Sree Sree Lakshmi Narayan Jiu Thakur worshipped by the Raj family were installed at the residence of, the Plaintiffs, and that the daily sheba and puja (service and worship, etc.) of the said deities were performed at the cost of the Raj Estate. The predecessors of the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs have been receiving a britti of Rs. 4,000 from the Kasimbazar Raj Estate for the purpose of defraying the expenses of service and worship of the deities aforesaid, for the period of over hundred years. In recent times after the Court of Wards assumed charge of the Kasimbazar Raj Estate, difficulties were raised in the matter of the payment of the annual britti. and at one stage, Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nandy, during whose time the Court of Wards took charge of the Kasimbazar Raj Estate, wrote to the Manager under the Court of Wards, stating that the britti was payable by the Raj Estate, and that it was a charge on the estate. The Manager was not prepared to accept liability in the matter of payment of the britti, and the Plaintiffs Were not paid the amounts due to them. 2. The claim in the suit was resisted by the Defendants. The first Defendant was Maharaja Sris Chandra Nundy, son of the late Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nundy for self and his own next friend, he for the time being the Manager of the Kasimbazar Raj Estate, under the Court of Wards. The second Defendant in the suit was the Manager under the Court who was brought on record as a Defendant, after Maharaja Sris Chandra Nundy had relinquished his position as Manager under the Court of Wards. 3. The second Defendant in the suit was the Manager under the Court who was brought on record as a Defendant, after Maharaja Sris Chandra Nundy had relinquished his position as Manager under the Court of Wards. 3. The first Defendant asserted in his written statement filed in Court, that the Plaintiffs' claim of britti did not form a charge on any of the properties belonging to the Kasimbazar Raj Estate. The Plaintiffs' allegation as to installation of deities at the house of the gurus of the Raj family was not admitted. The statements contained in the letter of Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nundy specifically referred to in the plaint were not denied; but the Defendant craved leave to refer to the original. The definite case of the Defendant No. 1 was that payments were made to the Plaintiffs from time to time by way of charity, by the proprietor for the time being, the Plaintiffs having no legal right to recover the amount claimed, and the Kasimbazar Raj Estate was not legally bound to pay the same. It was specifically stated in the written statement of the Defendant No. 1 that the letter of the late Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nundy was not legal evidence of the right claimed by the Plaintiffs, was not legally admissible in evidence for that purpose, and was not binding upon the Defendant or upon the Estate. 4. The Defendant No. 2, the Manager, adopted by his written statement filed in Court, the written statement already filed by the Defendant No. 1; it was further stated by the Defendant No. 2 that in view of an indenture executed by Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nundy on the 12th November, 1923, mortgaging his properties in favour of certain trustees which was in force, the properties mentioned in the said deed were free from all incumbrances other than the encumbrance mentioned in the fourth schedule to the said Indenture. According to the Defendant No. 2, the Plaintiffs' suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the trustees under the Indenture of the 12th November, 1923, mentioned above. 5. On the pleadings of parties a number of issues were raised for determination in the case. The material issues can be classified under five different heads as stated below. I Have the Thakurs of Srikhanda been the gurus of the Kasimbazar Raj family (Issue No. 3) ? II. 5. On the pleadings of parties a number of issues were raised for determination in the case. The material issues can be classified under five different heads as stated below. I Have the Thakurs of Srikhanda been the gurus of the Kasimbazar Raj family (Issue No. 3) ? II. Are the deities mentioned in para. 2 of the plaint installed and worshipped by the members of the Raj family as alleged in the plaint (Issue No. 8) ? Have the daily worship and periodical religious ceremonies of Radha Gobinda and Lakshmi Narayan Jiu been performed by Plaintiffs and their predecessors from expenses supplied by the Kasimbazar Raj, and have other idols been established and worshipped by the Plaintiffs and their predecessors at the instance of the Kasimbazar Raj as alleged by the Plaintiffs (Issue No. 4) ? III. Have the Plaintiffs and their predecessors received Rs. 4,000 per annum in two instalments for the expenses of service and worship of idols, and as britti, and does this claim form a charge upon the Kasimbazar Raj Estate (Issue No. 5)? Is such charge legal and valid in the absence of any specification thereof? (Issue No. 7). Are the Plaintiffs entitled to claim the amount of Rs. 4,000 in two equal instalments from the Kasimbazar Raj Estate as claimed by them? IV. Are the trustees mentioned in the written statement filed by the Manager, Kasimbazar Wards Estate, necessary parties to the suit? Is the suit liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties? (Issue No. 13). V. Can the Plaintiffs get interest in the amount of arrears (Issue No. 11)? 6. The learned Additional District Judge by whom the case was heard, gave his decision in favour of the Plaintiffs. The suit was decreed against the Defendants with the declaration of charge prayed for on the amount decreed, on the Kasimbazar Raj Estate. There was no personal decree against the Defendant No. 1. The figure " 2 " in the judgment and the decree of the trial Court used in this connection, is a mistake for " 1." The Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 appealed to this Court. 7. There was no personal decree against the Defendant No. 1. The figure " 2 " in the judgment and the decree of the trial Court used in this connection, is a mistake for " 1." The Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 appealed to this Court. 7. In regard to the question raised by Issue No. 3, mentioned above, it need only be said that there was no serious controversy that the Thakurs of Srikhanda, the Plaintiffs in the suit and their predecessors have been the family gurus of the Kasimbazar Raj family, from the time of the founder of the family, Krishna Kanta Nandy, who flourished during the advent of the British Rule in Bengal, and the foundation of the Kasimbazar Raj by whom can be traced to the year 1788. The Defendant No. 1 and the late Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nandy who came to be the proprietors of the Kasimbazar Raj Estate, after the demise of Maharani Swarnamoyee, came from a different family, which had its own gurus; but the Thakurs of Srikhanda have been treated, after the days of Maharani Swarnamoyee, as family gurus,-accepting the tradition of the family of the founder of the house, Krishna Kanta Nandy-known in the contemporary history of Bengal as Kanta Babu. 8. On the main questions in controversy, the evidence is one-sided. In spite of definite averment of facts made in the plaint, no step was taken by the contesting Defendants in the suit to support their case as asserted by them in their written statements. There was the case of establishment or installation of two deities at the house of the Plaintiffs, and the case of the service and worship of the deities being carried on at the expense of the Kassimbazar Raj Estate,-paid in two instalments year after year, the total amount paid as britti being Rs. 4000 annually. In the plaint, the Plaintiffs claimed that the payment made as britti for carrying on the service of worship of deities was a charge upon the Kassimbazar Raj Estate. The Plaintiffs took their stand upon regular payment of britti; and relied upon statements contained in a letter written by the late Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nandy, definitely recognising the Plaintiffs' claim that the britti was a charge upon the Kassimbazar Raj Estate. The Plaintiffs took their stand upon regular payment of britti; and relied upon statements contained in a letter written by the late Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nandy, definitely recognising the Plaintiffs' claim that the britti was a charge upon the Kassimbazar Raj Estate. There can be no question and there is evidence in this case that documents and papers are carefully preserved in the record room of the Raj. It was incumbent on the part of the contesting Defendants in the suit, resisting the Plaintiffs' claim, and at whose instance specific issues were raised in the suit, to place before the Court, materials which could demolish the case stated by the Plaintiffs. Nothing was done on that behalf. The evidence in the case was one-sided, and the question was whether that evidence could be acted upon, and it could be held that the extent and nature of the liability of the Defendants in the suit was as asserted by the Plaintiffs. 9. The evidence in support of the case of establishment of two deities by Krishna Kanta Nandy, the founder of the Kassimbazar Raj at the house of the Thakurs of Srikhanda is not very convincing; and it was contended before us that the evidence could not be accepted as it was hearsay evidence altogether inadmissible in the case. Our attention was drawn to what was stated by one of the Plaintiffs, Rakhalananda Thakur, in his deposition before the Court that the deities Radha Gobinda and Lakhi Narayan were established by " our " ancestor Achutananda, at the instance of Krishna Kanta Nandy. The witness heard all that, and the tradition descended from father to son. Another Plaintiff Jagendra Thakur stated that the Raja of Kassimbazar established their deities; and he learnt as a tradition in the family from father to son that the two deities mentioned above, were established by Kassimbazar Malik. The evidence coming from another Plaintiff was also in that vein. The discussion of the question as to the nature and value of the evidence above referred to, is not of much practical importance, in view of our conclusion that it would not be safe, on the evidence before us, to hold that the Plaintiffs had established the case that the two deities mentioned above, at their house, were established by Kassimbazar Raj family or by its founder Krishna Kanta Nandy. It may however be mentioned that on the consideration of the materials before us, it is not possible to express the definite opinion that the Judge in the Court below is not right in his inference that the idols in question were established by the Raj family. 10. The position relating to the service and worship of the deities stands on a different footing. The case of the Plaintiffs, as indicated by Issues 4 and 8, was that the daily worship and periodical religious ceremonies of Radha Gobinda and Lakhi Narayan Jiu were performed by the Plaintiffs and their predecessors from expenses supplied by the Kassimbazar Raj, and at the instance of the Kassimbazar Raj. The evidence bearing on this part of the case, documentary and oral, points unmistakably to the position that the daily worship and the seasonal ceremonials in connection with worship of the deities Radha Gobinda and Lakshi Narayan Jiu were performed by the Plaintiffs and their predecessors from money received from the Kassimbazar Raj estate, as britti. On the evidence before us, the Plaintiffs and their predecessors had been receiving the amount of Rs. 4000 annually in two equal instalments as britti for the maintenance, worship and due performance of ceremonials in connection with the worship of the deities. The letters [Ex. 3 (k) of the 22nd April, 1890; Ex. 3 (H) of the 16th September, 1892; Ex. 3 (d) of the 12th September, 1895; Ex. 3 (x) of the 30th November, 1904; Ex. 3 (a) of the 15th December, 1906; Ex. 3 (n) of the 4th May, 1908; Ex. 3 (p) of the 11th October, 1912; Ex. 3-Z (3) of the 15th October, 1920; Ex. 3 (T) of the 22nd May, 1925; Ex. 3 (b)], taking their contents together, which cover a very long period of time, during which the Kassimbazar Raj estate was in the hands of Maharani Swarnamoyi and Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nandy, go to establish the position that payment of Rs. 4000 annually was made to the Plaintiffs' predecessors and to the Plaintiffs themselves and their predecessors, as britti for defraying the expenses of the service, worship and festivals in connection with the worship of the deities. The account books (Ex. 9 series) also show receipt of britti from 1869,-the Kassimbazar Raj Estate bearing expenditure for the sheba of the deities Radha Gobinda and Lakshmi Narayan Jiu. 11. The account books (Ex. 9 series) also show receipt of britti from 1869,-the Kassimbazar Raj Estate bearing expenditure for the sheba of the deities Radha Gobinda and Lakshmi Narayan Jiu. 11. The position then was that the money, the Plaintiffs and their predecessors received from the Kassimbazar Raj Estate as britti, was spent for the daily worship and seasonal rites and performances in connection with their worship of the deities Radha Gobinda and Lakshmi Narain Jiu. The deities were maintained and worshipped by the Plaintiffs and their predecessors before them, and they were maintained and worshipped with money supplied by the Raj, from generation to generation. The britti was made for the worship of the deities. This is what is stated by the Plaintiff Gourgunananda Thakur, one of the Plaintiffs in his evidence before the Court. Another Plaintiff, examined in the case, stated that the worship was done with the britti, Kishorananda Thakur, another Plaintiff, gave evidence to the effect that the deities Radha Gobinda and Lakshmi Narayan were maintained by Kassimbazar Raj estate. They got the britti for five generations, and the history of the origin of the deities and their worship come down to them as a tradition in the family from father to son. The amount of Rs. 4,000, the annual britti, was spent for the worship of the two deities Radha Gobinda and Lakshi Narayan. On the evidence in the case the position is established that the Kassimbazar Raj Estate defrayed the expenses in connection with the worship of the two deities at the house of the Plaintiffs and their predecessors. The question whether the two deities were in fact installed or established by Krishna Kanta Nandy, or were installed at his instance was not of great consequence; but it was established on evidence, and on inference from facts proved by evidence, that there was annual grant of Rs. 4,000 by the Kassimbazar Raj Estate for the purpose of the service and worship of two deities at the house of the gurus of the Raj family. The regular payment of the britti for the maintenance in the manner disclosed in the documentary evidence before us, leads to the definite conclusion that Krishna Kanta Babu, the founder of the Kassimbazar Raj Estate, settled a britti of Rs. 4,000, payable annually for the maintenance, service and worship of two deities. The regular payment of the britti for the maintenance in the manner disclosed in the documentary evidence before us, leads to the definite conclusion that Krishna Kanta Babu, the founder of the Kassimbazar Raj Estate, settled a britti of Rs. 4,000, payable annually for the maintenance, service and worship of two deities. The evidence establishes further, that there was the intention and the desire in the successive holders of the Estate for the continuance of the regular grant for the service and worship of the deities, which will continue from generation to generation. There was no creation of a debuttar, and there was no endowment of property by Krishna Kanta Nandy, but the religious and the pious wish of a Hindu to perpetuate the service and worship of two deities in a manner befitting the position of the founder and the holders of the Kassimbazar Raj Estate was there. In view of the nature of the grant originally made, which on the evidence before us, continued from generation to generation, and regard being had to the manner of payment, the suggestion that the payment for the service and worship of two deities was in the nature of charity, does not, in our judgment, bear examination and serious consideration. The payments as made out by evidence before us were not made to the Plaintiffs and their predecessors, as annual payments to gurus of the Kassimbazar Raj family, as guru pronamis. They were brittis settled, and paid regularly to the gurus entrusted with the service and worship of the two deities Radha Gobinda and Lakshmi Narayan. It may be noticed in this connection that the Plaintiffs placed before the Court the best available evidence to prove their case afforded by documentary and oral evidence coming from elderly persons, who were competent to speak on the subject. It was the duty of the Defendants in the suit, to place materials in their possession and power, on which it could be held that the Plaintiffs' case before the Court could not be supported. As the Judge in the Court below has observed, the omission of the Defendants to place necessary materials before the Court led to the reasonable presumption that materials if produced by the Defendants would have established beyond any doubt, that for generations past the family of the Plaintiffs had been receiving Rs. As the Judge in the Court below has observed, the omission of the Defendants to place necessary materials before the Court led to the reasonable presumption that materials if produced by the Defendants would have established beyond any doubt, that for generations past the family of the Plaintiffs had been receiving Rs. 4000 annually in two instalments as britti for the maintenance of the two deities Radha Gobinda and Lakshmi Narayan Jiu. The case stated in the written statements of the Defendants that the britti was in the nature of a personal charity, and that various sums were paid to the Plaintiffs and their predecessors by way of charity by the proprietor for the time being was not even attempted to be established, and the evidence on the record does not bear out such a position. 12. The evidence given on the side of the Plaintiffs, so far as it consisted of the statements by the Plaintiffs in their evidence given in Court, in support of the position that the deities Radha Gobinda and Lakshmi Narain Jiu were worshipped by them and maintained by the Kasimbazar Estate from generation to generation, that the Plaintiffs' family had been doing the worship at the cost of the said estate; that one of the Plaintiffs, 65 years of age, heard about the origin of the britti from his father and the tradition descended from father to son, and the worship of the deities continued on the expenses paid, Rs. 4,000 as britti or annual grant, by the Kassimbazar Estate; that the britti was received from the last five generations and the history of its origin came down as a tradition in the family from father to son, as deposed to by another Plaintiff aged 63 years, was subjected to the comment that it was altogether inadmissible inasmuch as it was hearsay evidence. It was also contended on the authority of the decision in Rani Lekraj Kuar v. Baboo Mahpal Singh and Rani Raghubuns Knar v. Baboo Mahpal Singh L. R. 7 I. A. 63 : s. c. I. L. R. 5 Cal. 744 (1879) that regard being had to the provisions of sec. It was also contended on the authority of the decision in Rani Lekraj Kuar v. Baboo Mahpal Singh and Rani Raghubuns Knar v. Baboo Mahpal Singh L. R. 7 I. A. 63 : s. c. I. L. R. 5 Cal. 744 (1879) that regard being had to the provisions of sec. 2 of the Indian Evidence Act, which has repealed all rules of evidence, not contained in any of the statutes or regulaions, it was for the Plaintiffs to make out that the evidence given by them was admissible under some provision of the Indian Evidence Act. It is to be noticed in this connection that sec. 2(1) of the Indian Evidence Act repeals the whole of the English Common Law on evidence so far as it was in force in British India before the passing of the Indian Evidence Act, and that provision of the law, in, effect, prohibits the employment of any kind of evidence not specifically authorised by the Act itself. It must be recognised however that the principle of exclusion adopted by the Indian Evidence Act, should not be applied so as to exclude matters which may be essential for the ascertainment of truth. Applying this principle to the case before us, the evidence of tradition in the family of the Plaintiffs, cannot be characterised and placed in the category of mere hearsay evidence inadmissible under the law,-supported as it is by the documentary evidence of great value, relating to the regular payment of britti by the Kassimbazar Raj Estate to the Plaintiffs' family for generation to generation, for maintenance and worship of deities. The evidence coming from the Plaintiffs' side, consisted of a tradition handed down from time immemorial; and the evidence given by some of the Plaintiffs was admissible as statement of opinion as to a family tradition, which was founded upon information derived from deceased persons. The relaxation of the rule as to reception of hearsay evidence must be held to be permissible where such a course tends to the due investigation of truth, and the attainment of justice; and in the case before us, the best evidence to prove ancient rights was by proof of tradition and usages in the family of the Plaintiffs as far back as living memory goes, by having recourse to declarations of persons deceased. The proof of such traditions was also to be found in the documents supporting the statements of deceased persons. Judging from the above standpoint, no part of the evidence in support of the Plaintiffs' case before us could be held to be inadmissible under the law, as was contended for by the Defendants-Appellants. 13. In support of the appeal it was strenuously urged that the decision arrived at by the Court below was based on presumptions, and upon presumptions drawn from presumptions. Authorities were cited before us in support of that argument, which in our opinion have no possible application; seeing that it is not upon presumption drawn from presumption that the conclusions on the main question in controversy in the case before us were based. The conclusions arrived at by the trial Court are based on facts proved by evidence and upon reasonable inference drawn from the facts proved, to the adoption of which course, no just or proper exception could be taken. 14. The britti was settled for the purpose of maintenance, service and worship of the deities, from generation to generation; the intention of the original settlor and his successors up till the time of Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nandy was that the payment of the britti as settled was to be made out of the income of the Kassimbazar Raj Estate. The question then arising for consideration was whether the amount of Rs. 4,000 paid and made payable as britti forms a charge upon the Kassimbazar Raj Estate. The question was primarily one of intention [see Omrao Begum v. Secretary of State for India in Council L. R. 19 I. A. 95: s. c. I. L. R. 19 Cal. 584 (1892), Raja of Ramnad v. Sundara Panddyasami Tevar L R. 46 I, A. 64 S. c. 23 C. W. N. 549 (1918) and Khajeh Soleman Quadir v. Nawab Sir Salimullah Bahadur L. R. 49 I. A. 153: s. c. 27 C. W. N. 101 (1922) ]. Was there the intent to create a charge? Did the original settlor Krishna Kanta Nandy and the successive owners in possession after him of the Kassimbazar Raj Estate, intend to create a charge on property out of the rents and profits of which the expenses for religious worship were to be paid ? Was there the intent to create a charge? Did the original settlor Krishna Kanta Nandy and the successive owners in possession after him of the Kassimbazar Raj Estate, intend to create a charge on property out of the rents and profits of which the expenses for religious worship were to be paid ? The service and worship contemplated was undoubtedly of a permanent character, and there could not be any perpetuation of the original intention unless there was a charge on property out of whose income the religious worship was to be carried on from generation to generation, as it had been done, on the evidence in the case before us. There was the evidence oral and documentary from which inference could legitimately be drawn, that a charge was intended to be created on the Kassimbazar Raj Estate, so far as the payment of britti for carrying on debsheba was concerned. In addition to the evidence afforded by the deposition of witnesses speaking to the creation of a charge, and the inference to be drawn from documents, relating to the payments made by the Raj Estate to the Plaintiffs and their predecessors, there were the statements contained in two letters written by the late Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nandy, one addressed to the Secretary to the Board of Revenue on the 2nd February, 1929 (Ex. 1 in the case) and another to the Manager under the Court of Wards, Ext. 5 dated 28th June, 1929, from which the intention to create a charge and the position that the annual britti of Rs. 4,000 paid to the Plaintiffs and their predecessors from generation to generation was a charge upon the Estate, and that it was not in the nature of a charity, were made clear. The letters contained clear admissions on the part of the Maharaja of a pre-existing charge. 15. In view of the controversy raised in this part of the case, which was the most material part-it is necessary to consider three documents together. In the Indenture dated the 12th December, 1923 (Ex. F), the late Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nandy did not mention that there was a charge on the Kassimbazar Raj Estate for payment of the annual britti of Rs. 4000, the subject of the present litigation. In the Indenture dated the 12th December, 1923 (Ex. F), the late Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nandy did not mention that there was a charge on the Kassimbazar Raj Estate for payment of the annual britti of Rs. 4000, the subject of the present litigation. The Defendants relied very strongly upon this circumstance, without consideration of the position clearly indicated in the letter to the Secretary to the Board of Revenue (Ex. 1), that payments of annuity to spiritual guides, including the payment of britti now in suit, were to be paid out of income of properties left with him. These properties were undoubtedly parts of the Kassimbazar Raj Estate, the bulk of which formed the subject of the Indenture of mortgage (Ex. F). The letter Ex. 5 brings out the whole position in clear relief; and reference is made to the letter (Ex. 1) addressed to the Secretary to the Board of Revenue from which a very important extract is given, with the object of making out the position taken up by the Maharaja that the britti now in question was not of the nature of personal charity, but had always been regarded as a charge,-legally enforceable against the Kassimbazar Raj Estate. The effect of the letter Ex. 5, containing an admission as to the real nature of the britti, was sought to be avoided by the contesting Defendants in the suits. It was suggested in cross-examination of one of the Plaintiffs examined as a witness in the case, that Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nandi did not understand the contents of the same,- as it was written in English, after he had given instructions-for the same was given in Bengali-to one of his officers, -the writer of the letter in English. The suggestion at the time of the hearing of the case in the trial Court was that the Maharaja was coaxed and cajoled into writing of; the letter by the Plaintiffs. None of the above suggestions could be substantiated on evidence; and is not consistent with the case sought to be made out in the written statement filed in Court, by the Defendant No. 1, the son of Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nandy. 16. The letters, Exts. 1 and 5, taken together serve to make out the position that the britti of Rs. 16. The letters, Exts. 1 and 5, taken together serve to make out the position that the britti of Rs. 4000 payable annually to the Plaintiffs was in the nature of a permanent grant for the purpose of maintenance, service and worship of two deities Radha Gobinda and Lakshmi Narayan Jiu, payable to the Plaintiffs, and that the britti was a charge upon the Kassimbazar Raj Estate. The evidence in the case before us, serves to confirm the statements contained in the letters Exts. 1 and 5, which operate as admissions, on the contesting Defendants, the admissions of a person, through whom they claim. The question whether a perpetual charge of the nature could be created was discussed before the Court below, as it was discussed in support of this appeal before us. It need only be stated that regard being had to the nature of the grant for the permanent worship and maintenance of two deities, nothing but a perpetual charge could be intended or contemplated by the original grantor or by his successors in possession of the Kassimbazar Raj Estate. In our judgment, the English rule of law which prohibits creation of perpetuities cannot possibly apply to gifts to idols in this country or to permanent grants of money to be paid out of income of properties for the maintenance and worship of deities which must in the nature of things be permanent grants passing from generation to generation. 17. The britti settled by the original grantor for the worship and maintenance of two deities for ever, could not possibly be placed in the category of a personal contract and of a liability acknowledged by the successors of the grantor, on the footing of a personal liability. The nature of the grant militates against the idea of any personal liability as suggested by the contesting Defendants in the suit, a position which could not be seriously maintained, in view of the nature of the liability, in respect of which it was the intention to create a charge upon properties falling within the description of Kassimbazar Raj Estate. The creation of a charge upon any specific item or items of property was not intended, and the charge that was created related to the Kassimbazar Raj Estate, as mentioned in the letter Ex. 5, addressed to the Manager, under the Court of Wards, by Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nandy. 18. The creation of a charge upon any specific item or items of property was not intended, and the charge that was created related to the Kassimbazar Raj Estate, as mentioned in the letter Ex. 5, addressed to the Manager, under the Court of Wards, by Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nandy. 18. It remains now to refer to two other questions raised by the Issues Nos. 13 and 11 in the suit, and which were pressed before us in support of the appeal. 19. The exception taken to the interest allowed by the trial Court does not appear to us to be justified,-regard being had to the attitude taken up by the Defendants in the suit, in the matter of coming to an amicable settlement of the claim put forward by the Plaintiffs. 20. The non-joinder of the trustees mentioned in the Indenture Ex. F dated the 12th November, 1923, could not lead-to the dismissal of the suit in which this appeal has arisen. The trustees may not be bound by this decision; but the non-mention of the charge on the Kassimbazar Raj Estate in the Indenture, so far as the britti claimed by the Plaintiffs, could not have the effect of destroying the same, which according to our decision existed from before the execution of the Indenture Ex. F referred to above. It is necessary to mention in this connection, that although a great deal was made on the question of non-joinder of trustees, and an issue was joined on that point, no materials were placed on record, to show what exactly the position of the persons named as trustees in the Indenture was with reference to the Kassimbazar Raj Estate, now under the Court of Wards, represented by the Manager, Defendant No. 2. The decision regarding the declaration of a charge binds the Defendants in the Suit, representing the Kassimbazar Raj Estate, and the Plaintiffs are satisfied with that position. The result of the conclusion arrived at by us is that the appeal must be dismissed; and we direct accordingly. The decision and decree against which the appeal was directed, are affirmed. The Plaintiffs Respondents are entitled to get their costs in this appeal from the Defendants Appellants.