________________
104
APPENDIX B.
This, again, is not quite correct. The instance mentioned in the case which was decided by the Sudder Court on 18th January 1902, must be at least 15 years old, if not more. The other case which was decided by the Commissioner of Jabalpur in 1877 must relate to transactions which took place a little earlier. So that the instance must be at least 40 years old (but, we must not forget, that the usage proved here is at least 40 years old) would be rendily accepted by me as sufficient foundation for declaring the Late to be in accordance with that usage. But in the present case there is rery strong and almost conclusive testimony of old and authoritative Jaina Books which I cannot but act upon. And it is this testimony of ancient and recognized Jaina Rishis which bas led me not to issue a large number of commissions to different Jaina centres which I other vise might have felt called upon to issue in the interest of Law and Justice. These Jaina Lav Books are dealt with below. · The third objection by the plaintiff is that, in the instance proved by the defendants, the reversioners did not dispute the gifts by the widors. The implication is that the illegality of the widows' donations was condoned by the reversioners, or that the reversioners expressly or impliedly consented to the alienations. The reversioners pould certainly see no visdom in objecting to the gift of the widov then she was acting within her rights, according to law and usage. But in one or two instances the plaintiff's learned pleader brought it out in cross-examination that the reversioners did dispute the widow's alienation. But then it transpired that in all cases the reversioners had to eat humble pie and the widow's full poters Tere recognised.
• The fourth objection to the proof of custom was that the Jaina Law Books, which are cited, do not give an absolute estate to the ridots. It would be convenient to consider this with the next point in the argument for the plaintiff, viz., that
