JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J. - This is a rivision under Section 102 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the order dated 4-12-1962 of the Additional Civil Judge of Mirzapur dismissing its appeal and thereby maintaining the order of the Rehabilitation Grants Officer all. owing rehabilitation grant to the opposite party, Raj Kumar Rukmini Raman Brahma. 2. The lower appellate court rightly observed that the Rehabilitation Grants Officer had committed certain procedural irregularities but declined to remand the case for a fresh hearing. Considering that the State of Uttar Pradesh had not raised any question of fact and the award of the rehabilitation grant was challenged on question of law, refusal to remand the case for a fresh hearing cannot be said to be improper, in any case, no case for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction is made out. 3. What was throughout pleaded on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh was that the transfer in favour of the opposite party amounted to a sale or gift and hence was not to be recognised in view of the provisions contained in Section 23 of the I.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Records Act and further, that in view of Section 24 thereof such transfer was all and void. 4. Two points for consideration are: (1) whether the transfer in question was by way of sale or, gift, and (2) if Section 24 is applicable to the instant case. The first question shall naturally depend upon whether there was a complete transfer of the rights of ownership and also whether the transfer was for discharge of a legal right or was merely by way of gift. 5. The learned Standing Counsel invited my attention to the Supreme Court decision in Mirza Raja Pushpavathi Vijayaram Gajpathi Rai Manne Sultan Bahadur v. Sri Pushvathi Visweswar Gajapathiraj Raj Kumar of Vizianagram, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 118 in support of his contention that the junior members of a co-parcenary governed by the law of primogeniture i.e. an impartible estate, could not, as a matter of right, claim maintenance. It is true that such a general observation was made in Para 12 but the observation was made with reference to the Privy Council decision in Rama Rao v. Raja of Pittapur, I.L.R. 41 Mad. It is true that such a general observation was made in Para 12 but the observation was made with reference to the Privy Council decision in Rama Rao v. Raja of Pittapur, I.L.R. 41 Mad. 778 in fact the Privy Council case had been quoted with approval. Consequently, the law laid down in this Privy Council case is still applicable. A perusal thereof makes it clear that certain members of the family, and not all, are entitled to maintenance and such persons as are entitled to maintenance can claim the right of maintenance as a matter of right. the opposite party is the younger brother of the Raja and ordinarily would be entitled to maintenance. 6. Whenever a property is transferred to discharge the claim of maintenance, the transfer cannot be said to be without consideration and hence shall not amount to a gift. In any case, the document under which the property was transferred to the opposite party makes it clear that the transferor had not transferred all his rights in the property and when all the rights and interests in the property are not transferred the transfer cannot amount to a sale or gift which. naturally contemplates transfer of all the rights and not only some. 7. An important condition of the transfer was that in case of there being no male lineal descendant of the transferred, the property shall revert to the holder of the jagir whoever he may be. In case there was transfer of all the rights in the property, such a condition, if incorporated, shall be invalid. But if such a condition is enforceable, the transfer shall not be of all the interests in the property and hence it shall not amount to a sale or gift. 8. Transfer of property in lieu of maintenance without any right of alienation has been recognised by custom and has been upheld by the courts of law. See Baijnath Prasad Singh v. Tej Bali Singh, 14 A.L.J.R. 913. Further, an impartible estate belongs to the co-parcenary and reverts to the estate whenever there is no one entitled to maintenance the purpose for which the transfer was made. See Baijnath Prasad Singh v. Tej Bali Singh, 14 A.L.J.R. 913. Further, an impartible estate belongs to the co-parcenary and reverts to the estate whenever there is no one entitled to maintenance the purpose for which the transfer was made. When in case of there being no lineal descendant the property in question was to revert to the impartible estate and not to the legal heir of the last owner, some interest in the property shall continue to vest in the Raja and hence the transfer by way of maintenance shall not amount to a sale or gift. 9. In the above circumstances, the transfer in favour of the opposite party shall not be governed by Section 23 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 10. It was not pleaded before the lower courts that the opposite party held any other zamindari property. He was thus an intermediary after the acquisition of the property under the document in question. He was not an intermediary independent of the rights acquired under this document. Section 24 governs transfer by an intermediary in favour of another person. When the opposite party was not an intermediary and, in fact, had not made any transfer, he shall not be governed by Section 24. 11. The revision has thus no force and it is hereby dismissed. Costs easy.