WYAWASTHA.DARPANA, 0ስ0 fully investigated, or settled; but which, without proof of authority for the ndoption having been delegated to Soogunda, it was not necessary to determine in the present instance, The evidence to the delegation of the authority for the adoption, which was in itself manifestly suspicious, and which was given by the same persons who, in the judgument of the Court, gave false testimony to the execution of the Niyumputra, was not considered competent to establish the fact of authority having been delegated to Soogunda by her husband for the adoption of Soondermarain, and, consequently, no title of succession to the disputed estate was deemed to have vested in him. The decrees of the Zillah and Provincial Courts, as far as they rejected the filleged aloption and title of Soondernstain, were affirmed. But as there appeared to be now six daughters' sons of Jadooram, viz. Shamapershad, Anundlal, Nundlal, Lukkhinaraiu, Mudousuudun, and Gunganarain, (the two last born to his daughter Hureepria since Soogunda's death,) and, accordthe exposition of the Hindoo law delivered by the Pundits, these six were entitled to gharo the zomimlary equally, with reservation of the eventual birth of othor Fons to Iniroeprim, who would be entitled to share with the other daughters' sons; the zemindary was adjudged, with this reservation, to the six daughters' sons of Jadooram above specified, as being the heirs at law to Jynarain, who held the estate before Songunda. May 27th, 1811, S, D. A. ltep, vol. I, p. 82 Ł. * Shwachader and Ronderrhoider, Appellants, versus Narayni Dioch was Rankishor Rai, l'esprudents, This was an action brought by Shamchunder and Rooderehunder in the zillah court of ( ’ANE i taring on th yavast hás Nus, hik Mymiusing, to recover from Narayni Dibel, and Rankishor Rai a 4 anna share of pergunnah у Mymunsing, &c. forming the estate of the late Kishenkishor Rai. The plaintiffs, in support of 50%, 504, 505, & 50, their claim, alleged that the defendant Narayni libeh had not been duly empowered to adopt llamkishot, and that, on the decease of Numskishor, adopted by Rutuntmala, the zemindar's whler widow, the plaintiffs were his heirs, as nephews of Kishenkishor, his adoptive father, The defendants, first, contradicted the assertion of the plaintiffs with respect to the illegality of Ramkishot's adoption ; and second, insisted that, as the plaintiffs were only soils of the half brothers of the adoptive father of Nundkishor, the distant degree of relationship which they hore to Nundkish or would not entitle them to succeed to his property. On referring to the proceedings in another cause before tried, the zillal Judge being of opinion that the plaintists (Shamehunder and Roolerchunder) were not entitled to any part of the 4 anna share in dispute, judgment was given against them in the zillah Court, with costs. The plaintiffs appealed from the above decision to the Provincial Court of Davea. It, appeared that, on the oth of December 1801, a decree was passed by the Sudder Đewanny .Adawlut in a cause between Narayni Dibeh and Hurkishor (son of Josgilkishor who was allopted by Gopalkishot, ) on which appeal the pundits of the Sudder I)ewanny Adawlut gave an opinion, that the heir of Nundkish or would be Hurkishor, not Narayni Dibch, as she was not mother but step-mother; but that if she had authority to make an adoption, then Ramkishor, having been adopted by her, would be heir to Nundkishor, as his adoptive brother. The Provincial Court were satisfied with the evidence given in the former canae in the zillah Court of Itungpore, with respect to the authority for adopting Ramkishor, and held it to be established that he was 53
