1. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that Exh. V did not operate as a release by the plaintiff's father of all claims on behalf of himself and his family for maintenance. The learned Advocate-General then contended that in the case of an impartible Zemindari the junior members of the family have no legal right to maintenance, a conclusion which, he argues, follows logically from the recent decisions of the Privy Council as to the nature of an impartible Zemindari. We are not prepared to accept this contention which, we may observe, was given up in the Court below. In Raja Yarlagadda Mallikarjuna Prasada Nayadu v. Raja Yarlagadda Durga Prasada Nayadu I.L.R. (1900) M. 147 their Lordships distinctly recognise the right to maintenance of the junior members of a Raj or other impartible estate. A similar claim was allowed without opposition in the Udayarpalayam case I.L.R. (1905) M. 508 and, so far as our knowledge extends, is in accordance with the usage prevailing in Southern India.
2. Then as to the rate awarded which is alleged to be excessive, Rs. 300 was the rate awarded to the plaintiff's father who was the brother of the then Zemindar. We think that ordinarily the only son of a junior member ought not to be allowed maintenance at the same rate as his father especially where, as in the present case, the existing head of the family had junior sons of his own who will have to be maintained out of the estate. And even taking into consideration the increased prosperity of the Zamindctri at the present time, we think the rate of Rs. 300 awarded by the Subordinate Jude is excessive and should be reduced and that the proper rate is Rs. 250 a month. As regards arrears, however, we think the rate should only be Rs. 200 up to the 7th June 1907 when it is admitted the plaintiff attained the age of twenty-one. The decree will be modified accordingly. With these modifications, we confirm the decree and dismiss the appeal. Proportionate costs will be allowed in this Court.