________________
APPENDIX B.
97
proposition. But they do not do so. They simply lay down that, in the absence of proof of custom, Hinda Lar applies to Jainas, This position is generally admitted, and I have discussed it at length in an carlier part of the judgment. The plaintiff's contention is farthor refated by Barnabh T. Mandil, I. L. R. 27 Cal. 379, which laid down that there was no material difference in the custoin of the Agarwala, Choreowal, Khandorsal and Ostral sects of the Jainas ; and that there was nothing to differentiate the Jaidas of Arrah from the Jainns elsewhero. Commenting on this, Jr. S. Roy, in his Custom and Cuslomary Law, says, at page 142:
"It should be noted that Judicial Decisions recoguizing the existence of a disputed custom amongst the Joings of one place, are very relorant as cridence of the cxistence of the same custom amongst tho Jainas of another place."
'So thero Tould scem to bo no presumption of any difference as to custom between the Jainas of difforent sects or different localities. The Jainas are governed by the same Lase, trhoover or wherever they may be, unless the contrary is established by opideacc. Tho plaintiff in the present case has adduced no esidence to rebut the defendants' proof of the custom set up in thcir written statement.
The next objection taken by the plaintiff is to the quantity and quality of the defendants' evidence being enough to proro the custom alleged. Ho reforred mo to 14 M. I. A. P. 585 and to Mayne's Nindu Law and Usage, p. 58. There the quantity and character of the proof necessary to establish a custom aro discussed. I have already dealt trith these in my remarks under Customary Law in general.
The plaintiff contends that only 6 instances are proved by the defendants in this case. This is inaccurate. There are no loss than 23 instances on the record. Thoy are from Burvaha, Sanatad, Dhangaon, Khandwa, Indore, Dhor and other places.
