JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS appeal, by the plaintiff is directed against a judgment of the additional District Judge, Tikamgarh, dated 29th August 1970, dismissing her claim for possession of five items of immovable property known as Janki Bag, as detailed in para 27 of the plaint, and for recovery of Rs. 10,800 as mesne profits thereof at the rate of Rs. 300 per month, on the strength of the rubkar, ex. P-104, dated 26-6 1924. ( 2. ) THE material facts of the case are not in dispute. The plaintiff", maharani Appla Kondayamba Devi Baru alias Urmila Devi, sues in the status of Maharani of Orchha, claiming the right to enforce the terms of the rubkar, ex P-104, dated 26-6-1924 executed by the late Maharaja Sir Pratap Singh Ju deo of Orchha in favour of his third wife, Maharani Narendra Kunwar baronhiwali, the material portion of which reads :- ( 3. ) MAHARAJA Sir Pratap Singh Ju Deo was first married to Maharani brijbhan Kunwar Khiriyawali, and upon her death was next married to Maharani Ganesh Kunwar Sengwawali. On the death of his second wife, he married maharani Narendra Kunwar Baronhiwali. All the three wives, in their turn, apparently held Janki Bag towards their maintenance. On the death of Maharaja Sir Pratap Singh Ju Deo in the year 1930, he was succeeded to the Gaddi and the Raj by his grandson Maharaja Sir Vir Singh Ju Deo, and he made an endorsement on 15-4-I930 at the foot of the rubkar, Ex. P-104, in favour of his wife Maharani Kamla Devi, i. e. , renewed the grant in her favour by reason of her status of being the reigning Maharani. The endorsement made by him was to the effect: - ( 4. ) MAHARAJA Sir Vir Singh Ju deo died on 7-10-1956 and vas succeeded by his son Maharaja Devendra Singh Ju Deo. Meanwhile, the rulers of the erstwhile states of Bundelkhand and Baghelkhand, including the late Maharaja sir Pratap Singh Ju Deo had entered into an Instrument of Accession, whereby they agreed to integrate the territories of their States into the one State by the name of the United State of Vindhya Pradesh we. f. 1-1-1950. On 26-12-1949, the former ruler of Orchha executed the merger agreement. f. 1-1-1950. On 26-12-1949, the former ruler of Orchha executed the merger agreement. Consequently on 21-11-1956 the President of India granted recognition to Maharaja Devendra singh Ju Deo as the ruler of Orchha w. e. f. 7-10-1956. In consequence whereof, his wife Smt. Maharani Appla Kondayamba Devi Baru @ Urmila Ju Deo, the plaintiff, became the Maharani. ( 5. ) TO continue the sequence of events, the Rajmata, i. e. , Maharani kamla Devi in her capacity as Maharani of Orchha, had instituted a suit against the State Government of Madhya Pradesh, being Civil Suit No. 4 of 1955 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh, for rendition of accounts of the income of the 12 jagir villages which she held in terms of the sanad, ex. P-103, dated 22-7-1921 in lieu of her maintenance, and she tentatively claimed that Rs. 1,63,711. 70 p. were due to her. That suit having been dismissed, she had preferred First Appeal No. 7 of 1957 (Smt. Kamla Devi v. The State of madhya Pradesh ). During the pendency of the appeal, the parties entered into a compromise and in lieu of the State Government paying to her a sum of rs. 2,52,000 towards the income from the jagir villages for a period of 12 years, commencing from the year 1947-48 at the rate of Rs. 21,000 per year, she gave up all claims to immovable properties covered by the sanad, Ex. P-103, dated 22-7-1921, and the rubkar, Ex P-104, dated 26-6-1924, endorsed in her favour by Maharaja Sir Vir Singh Ju Deo. Thereupon, this Court by its judgment dated 4 12-1961, Ex. P-25, directed that a decree be drawn in terms of the compromise. Accordingly, the compromise decree dated 4-12-1961, Ex. P-25, was drawn. ( 6. ) THE plaintiff who was insane and had brought the suit through her guardian Maharaja Devendra Singh Ju Deo, i. e , her husband, asserted that she was not bound by the compromise decree passed in Smt. Kamla Devi The state of Madhya Pradesh (First Appeal No. 7 of 1957 decided on 4-12-1961.), Ex P-25; that according to the kulachar, i. e. the family custom, the property known as Janki Bag covered by the rubkar, Ex. P-104, dated 26-6-1924, was held by the reigning Maharani. P-104, dated 26-6-1924, was held by the reigning Maharani. She pleaded that the custom in the family of the ruler was that the property descended from maharani to Maharani and, therefore, she being the Maharani became entitled to the properties in suit, which were owned by and in possession of the former maharani Kamla Devi, and were placed in possession of the State Government under the terms of the compromise decree. Upon that basis, she prayed for a decree for possession of these properties and for mesne profits thereof. ( 7. ) THAT claim of hers has been negatived by the learned trial Judge holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove the alleged custom; and, that under the terms of the rubkar, Ex P-104, dated 26-6 1924, the intention of the grantor maharaja Sir Pratap Singh Ju Deo was that the grantee Maharani Narendra kunwar Baronhiwali should hold the property for her lifetime, without any interference by any one even by succeeding rulers. In construing the grant, the learned trial Judge observes :- "the grant cited above was a fresh grant as "stridhan" to Barrohiwali Maharani. Towards the close of the "robkar" it was ordered that this "robkar" be published in the manner specified therein so that the succeeding rulers might not interfere with the rights granted under it. The use of the word "stridhan" and a desire to stop the succeeding rulers from taking away the property granted by him make the intention of the grantor quite clear. The intention plainly was that the property should be held by the grantee for her whole life without any interference even by the succeeding rulers. " ( 8. ) ACCORDINGLY, the learned trial Judge holds that Maharani Kamla Devi in whose favour the rubkar had been endorsed by Maharaja Sir Vir Singh Ju deo on 15 4 1930, could not be divested of the suit properties during her lifetime, irrespective of the fact whether she was or was not the Maharani, The learned trial Judge was of the view, on a construction of the rubkar that the grant of Janki Bag, was not subject to the condition that the Maharani should possess and enjoy the property granted, so long as she was, in fact, the Maharani and that in the event of her surviving the ruler, the property was to be taken away from her. On that view, the learned trial Judge held that Maharaja sir Vir Singh Ju Deo having died on 7-10-1956, i. e. , four months after the hindu Succession Act, 1956 was brought into force, Maharani Kamla Devi being possessed of the property as a Hindu female, became by virtue of section 14 (1) of the Act, the absolute owner thereof. The learned trial Judge further held that the effect of section 4 of the Act was to abrogate the alleged family custom, if any. In that view, the learned Judge held that the compromise decree in First Appeal No. 7 of 1957, Ex. P-25, dated 4-12-1961 was binding on the plaintiff, and that the State Government under the terms thereof, acquired an indefeasible title to the suit property. ( 9. ) THE plaintiffs suit is founded upon the alleged family custom. The burden of proving that custom was upon the plaintiff. In respect of family custom, the same principles are applicable, though, of course, in the case of a family custom instances in support of the custom may not be as many or as frequent as in case of customs pertaining to the community. In dealing with family customs consensus of opinion among members of the family, the traditional belief entertained by them and acted upon by them, their statements and their conduct would all be relevant. (See, Mullas Hindu Law, 14th Edn. , p. 84 ). The evidence must, however, be clear and unambiguous and should further prove that it was certain in character ( 10. ) TO establish the alleged custom, the plaintiff has examined her husband Maharaja Devendra Singh Ju Deo (P. W. 1), Parmanand (P. W. 3), pandit Har Prasad (P. W. 5), Major Bhan Singh (P. W. 6, Govinddas (P. W. 7) and Har Prasad (P W. 8), who are old servants of the Orchha State. Her allegation in the plaint is that Janki Bag was got constructed by Maharaja Sir pratap Singh Ju Deo about a hundred years back, for the Maharanis of the state. The learned trial Judge rightly observes that this means that the custom that grew in relation to this property is not older than the times of Maharaja sir Pratap Singh Ju Deo. The suit property, therefore, came to be possessed by his three Maharanis. The learned trial Judge rightly observes that this means that the custom that grew in relation to this property is not older than the times of Maharaja sir Pratap Singh Ju Deo. The suit property, therefore, came to be possessed by his three Maharanis. He married them one after another," and each remained in possession and enjoyment of the property during her life-time. In other words, all of them died during the tenure of being the Maharani. As Maharaja sir Pratap Singh Ju Deo used to re-marry after the demise of the earlier maharani, the property was always available for being given to the newly wed maharani. During his reign, there never arose an occasion when there were two claimants to the suit properties at one and the same time. The situation first arose after his death, when his son Maharaja Sir Vir Singh Ju Deo endorsed the suit properties to his Maharani Kamla Devi. There was, therefore, no previous instance where the grantee on ceasing to be Maharani was divested of her rights, and the property granted to the succeeding Maharani. A solitary instance of recent date as to such succession, is not sufficient to prove a special family custom, as it is neither ancient nor certain. The plaintiffs claim based upon the alleged family custom must, therefore, fail. ( 11. ) THE construction placed by the learned trial Judge upon the rubkar does not seem to be correct. He has laid undue emphasis on the word "stridhana". The recitals in the deed particularly the word stridhana, were used out of deference for the Maharani for the time being, and they did not signify an intention to make a grant in perpetuity. The use of the word stridhana is, therefore, not decisive of the nature of the grant. Where the words of a grant are clear, certain and unambiguous, they should be interpreted in their plain ordinary grammatical meaning, and consideration of any extraneous matter or evidence would be completely irrelevant, but where they are far from being clear, certain and unambiguous, extrinsic evidence is relevant and should be had recourse to, for the purpose of construing the grant. The learned trial Judge was, in our view, wrong in relying on the word stridhana forgetting that there is also reference to riwaz, i. e. , family usage, in the opening recitals. ( 12. The learned trial Judge was, in our view, wrong in relying on the word stridhana forgetting that there is also reference to riwaz, i. e. , family usage, in the opening recitals. ( 12. ) LOOKING to the object of the grant and the surrounding circumstances it was not the intention to grant an estate to the grantee for her lifetime, i. e. , to enure beyond her status as the Maharani. The grantor intended that the grantee, i. e. , the Maharani for the time being, should possess and enjoy the usufruct of the grant, so long as she remained his consort. The grant was, therefore, a pure maintenance grant. A grant for maintenance prima facie ceases with the life of the grantor and is presumable on the death of the grantee, but the presumption is rebuttable. Here Janki Bag under the rubkar formed part of the Raj from which it was never separated and, therefore, it would revert to the Maharaja for the time being, on the death of the grantee, or on her ceasing to be the Maharani. ( 13. ) WITHOUT entering into the question whether the property covered by the rubkar, Ex. P-104, dated 26-6-1924 was a limited estate of the kind contemplated by sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. We are satisfied that the plaintiffs claim must fail on other grounds. We are, however, inclined to think that the property held by Maharani Kamla Devi under the grant was property acquired under an instrument within the meaning of sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Act and, therefore, the nature of the estate must be determined on the terms of the grant, which prescribed a restricted estate. That is to say, there could, in law, be no enlargement of such estate by reason of section 14 (1) of the Act. Maharaja Sir Vir Singh Ju Deo having died on 7-10-1956, the property reverted to the Raj, i. e. , escheated to the State Government. ( 14. ) IN the present case, the plaintiffs suit must fail for several reasons. In the first place, there is no endorsement of the rubkar, Ex. P-104, dated 26-6-1924 in favour of the plaintiff. She, therefore, had no vestige of right or title to the property in suit, and could not claim to be placed in possession" thereof. ( 14. ) IN the present case, the plaintiffs suit must fail for several reasons. In the first place, there is no endorsement of the rubkar, Ex. P-104, dated 26-6-1924 in favour of the plaintiff. She, therefore, had no vestige of right or title to the property in suit, and could not claim to be placed in possession" thereof. The property had, in fact, escheated to the State Government and could not be endorsed in her favour. In the second place, after 1948, i. e. , after execution of the Instrument of Accession, the plaintiffs husband Maharaja devendra Singh Ju Deo had no power to make a grant. Thirdly, the alleged family custom on which the suit is based is not proved. Fourthly, Maharaja devendra Singh Ju Deo having been de-recognised by sub-clause (a) of article 363-A of the Constitution inserted by the Constitution (Twenty-sixth amendment) Act, 1971, his status as the ruler ceased, and consequently the plaintiff ceased to be the Maharani and, therefore, could lay no claim to the suit property. Fifthly, the compromise in First Appeal No. 7 of 1957 (Smt. Kamla Devi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh), was entered into by Maharani kamla Devi, in her capacity as Maharani of Orchha, and she, having relinquished all her claims under the rubkar, Ex. P-104, dated 26-6-1924 in lieu of payment of Rs. 2,52,000, the plaintiffs claim, if any, was not maintainable. Lastly, the plaintiff having died during the pendency of the appeal, the right to sue does not survive, as the nature of relief sought in the suit was personal to her. ( 15. ) THE result, therefore, is that the appeal must fail and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee as per schedule. Appeal dismissed.