JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :- These two appeals are by defendant No.1 against the common judgment and decrees passed in two suits of the two plaintiffs. The relevant facts are that the properties described in Schedule Ka to the plaints belonged to Manohar Mukherjee grandfather of the plaintiffs. He executed a deed of settlement in respect of these properties on 12-12-28 by which Mahendra Nath Mukherjee father of the defendant No.1 was given the Ka schedule properties of the plaints mentioned also in the deed. Under the terms of the settlement each of the plaintiffs were to get maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month from the said Monohar Mukherjee or his heirs out of the income of the Ka schedule properties and the properties were directed also to be charged for the maintenance Mahendra died in Jaistha, 1362 B. S. The plaintiffs, accordingly claimed in the suits from the defendant No.1 as heir of Mahendra the maintenance for 64 months with interest at the rate of 6%. A further prayer that their dues should be declared a charge on the Ka schedule properties or on the compensation money in respect of such of the said properties which vested in the State was also made. 2. The suit was contested by the defendant No.1 who filed written statement contending that the Ka schedule property except the Bhadrasan had vested in the State with effect from Baisakh 1362 B. S. Accordingly the defendant No. 1 was not liable to pay the arrears of maintenance and not liable to pay interest and there could be no charge on the Bhadrasan. 3. The learned Munsif came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were entit1ed to arrears of maintenance, but in respect of the properties which vested in the State they could only proceed against the compensation money payable to defendant No. 1 subject to the limitation imposed by section 26 of the Estates Acquisition Act which provides that no portion of compensation in excess of 50% thereof shall be liable to attachment at any time in execution of decree including decrees for arrears of rent. The suits were accordingly decreed in a preliminary form and the decretal dues were declared to be a charges on such of the Ka schedule properties which did not vest in the State under the Estates Acquisition Act and also on the compensation money subject to the limitation under section 26. 4. On appeal the decree of the learned Munsif were affirmed subject to the modification that there would be no limitation in respect of the charge on the compensation money for the claims of the plaintiffs. 5. The present appeals are against the aforesaid decision by the said defendant. Mr. Manindra Nath Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has not disputed that in view of the provisions of the deed of settlement the properties which did not vest in the State as also the compensation money for the properties vested are charged with the maintenance claimed in the suit. His objection, however, is that the Courts below have erred in decreeing the suit for the full amounts of maintenance as provided in the deed without taking into consideration that such fixed amount would not be proportionate to the return from the amount received as compensation. He accordingly submits that the decree insofar as that amount is concerned should be set aside and the case should be sent back for determination of the amount payable after taking into consideration the return available from the compensation money with reference to the notional income the properties would have fetched at the time of dedication. He has referred to the decision in the case of (1) Syed Duriesh Mohideen v. Madras State represented by the Collector of Salem and Others, reported in AIR 1957 Madras 577. Mr. Mitter learned Advocate for the plaintiff-respondents has not objected to the determination of the amount payable to the plaintiffs in the light of the change of circumstances on the principle enunciated in the Madras case. He however adds that in determining the amount that would be payable the income from the properties not vested, should also be taken into consideration. 6. After hearing the learned Advocates I am of the opinion that there is substance in Mr. Ghosh's objection as to the amount of compensation decreed by the Courts below which were purely on the basis of the amount fixed in the deed of settlement without taking into consideration the changed circumstances. 6. After hearing the learned Advocates I am of the opinion that there is substance in Mr. Ghosh's objection as to the amount of compensation decreed by the Courts below which were purely on the basis of the amount fixed in the deed of settlement without taking into consideration the changed circumstances. In view of the change of circumstances caused by vesting of the major portion of the properties the income wherefrom is to be given to the plaintiffs, it will be necessary for the Court to determine the amount of maintenance payable on a consideration of all the relevant facts. In the Madras case cited above, the Court observed as follows :- "It is not the net income at any intermediate point of time between 1906, when the gift was made and 1951, when the estate vested in the Government, that can fiurnish a real basis for working out rights of the appellant vis-a-vis respondent Nos. 2 to 12 who are entitled to the residuary rights in what had been the Bevuhalli Mitta Estate. In our opinion, the proportion of Rs. 350/- (which is the annuity) bore to the net income of the estate in 1906, when the gift was made, and the obligation was imposed on the donees, should furnish the true basis for arriving at the share the appellant would be entitled to in the amount now in deposit." The trial court before whom the cases are being sent back will determine the quantum of compensation that will be payable to the plaintiffs every month on the principle enunciated in the Madras decision stated above as far as possible and also in the light of any other relevant circumstance. 7. In the result these appeals are allowed as indicated below and the decrees of the Court of Appeal below in so far as they related to the quontum of the amount payable every month by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiffs are set aside. The decree granting declaration of charge for the amount as may be determined on the compensation money for such Ka schedule lands of the plaints vested as also on other properties of the said schedule not vested is affirmed. The suits are sent back to the trial court for proper determination of the quantum of the monthly maintenance in the light of observations made above and for decrees on the basis thereof. The suits are sent back to the trial court for proper determination of the quantum of the monthly maintenance in the light of observations made above and for decrees on the basis thereof. The parties will be given leave to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases on this point. 8. Mr. Ghosh wants that his clients should be relieved of their liability, otherwise recurring and perpetual, by grant of a lump payment, if possible. If such a prayer is made before the trial court the Court will consider the same in the light of the decision in the case (2) Mrinalini Dasi and Another v. Abinash Chandra Dutta and Others, reported in 11 CLJ 533: 14 CWN 1024 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 9 Mr. Mitter asks leave to amend the plaint schedule by including all the properties of the deed of settlement (Exhibit 1). If such an application is made the same will also be considered by the trial court in accordance with law. There will be no order for costs in this appeal.