Appeal and cross appeal No. 44 and 61 of 1960, dist. Udaipur have been filed under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act against one and the same judgment of the Addl. Jagir Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 4.4.60 and will be disposed of by this judgment. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. The main contention raised by Shri Chatar Singh is that para 113 of the Kanunmal Mewar does not allow any maintenance to the eldest son and as such the lower court was not justified in granting any maintenance allowance to Shri Kesarsingh. Para 113 of Kanunmal Mewar does not lay down the category of persons entitled to receive maintenance. It simply lays down the procedure with respect to persons entitled to receive maintenance. The implications of this para were examined by their Lordships of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Civil writ No. 102 of 1960 decided on 21st February, 1961. It was observed by their Lordships that the expression ^^,sls O;fDr ftu ds xqtkjs dk Hkkj fBdkus ;k tkxhj ijgks** clearly suggests that the mention of younger son or brother in first para of the paragraph is not an exhaustive enumeration of the list of persons who are entitled to maintenance allowance. If that were so there would be no point in use of the expression referred to above. Paragraph 113 therefore did not intend to categorise the entire relations who could claim maintenance allowance. In that case the claimant was receiving maintenance allowance in the past as well, a fact which is common to the present case as well. On these grounds their Lordships were pleased to reject the writ petition. The contention is therefore for these reasons in this case clearly untenable. Shri Chaturbhuj Sharma has argued that his client was at one time held to be eligible to the maintenance allowance of Rs. 4,000/- per year, and that there was no valid justification to reduce it to Rs. 690/- per year. It was also argued that the lower court was not justified in refusing payment of maintenance allowance by bonds. This is, however, a point which has been recently decided by the Board and we find no reasons to take a different view. The maintenance allowance is to be paid as and when it becomes due. 690/- per year. It was also argued that the lower court was not justified in refusing payment of maintenance allowance by bonds. This is, however, a point which has been recently decided by the Board and we find no reasons to take a different view. The maintenance allowance is to be paid as and when it becomes due. The only question therefore is about the quantum of the maintenance allowance. Looking to the income of the jagir and the amount that the maintestate-holder was getting in the past and considering all the relevant factors we are of the opinion that this amount should be raised to Rs. 900/-per annum. In arriving at this figure we have carefully considered the income of the jagir prior to settlement and subsequent to settlement. The net result is that the appeal filed by Shri Kesar Singh shall be allowed in part only and the amount of the maintenance allowance shall be raised to Rs. 900/-per annum as against Rs. 690/- per annum fixed by the lower court. The cross objection filed by the ex-jagirdar shall stand rejected.