vyAvASTHA-DARPANA. 902 duly and legally adopted; and it being in consequence considered that the appellants were entitled to no part of the 4 anna share, the appeal against the zillah decree was dismissed, with costs. On a further appeal by Shamehunder and Rooderchunder to the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, (present H. Colebrooke and J. Fombelle,) the pleas set up by them against the foregoing decrees were, first, that the adoption of the respondent Ramkishor, being a second adoption in the family of the same man, was illegal; second, that, even admitting two adoptions to be legal, one adopted son could not succeed to the property of the other adopted son, as the collateral heir. The questions of Ilindoo law, connected with the case, were proposed by the Court to their pundits in the following form: “After the death of Kishenkishor, zemindar of the 4 anna estate, without issue, his cláer widow having adopted Nundkishor; and when the elder widow and Nundkishor died, his younger widow having adopted Ramkishor; and claims to the estate having been preferred by Ramkishor, by Joogulkishor, the adopted son of Kishenkishor's brother, and by Shamchunder and Rooderchunder, sons of Kishenkishor's half brother; which of the claimants is heir at law to the property? and in the case of two adopted sons of a common adoptive father, can one, on the decease of the other, succeed to his property as the collateral heir 7” In answer to this reference, it was stated by the Pondits, that “if, after the death of Kishenkishor, his elder widow, duly authorised, adopted a son, that son was proprietor of the egtate ; and if, after the death of that son, the younger widow also adopted a son, under due authority, then, provided the adopted son of the elder widow left no issue, or brother by the mother who adopted him, his property would devolve on the adopted son of the younger widow of Kishenkishor, and not on the adopted son of Kishenkishor's brother, or on the sons of his half brother. The succession to one adopted son is vested in the other adopted son, as being the nearest collateral.” The Court of Sudder Dewanny Adawlut agreed with the Provincial Court of Dacca, with respect to the adoption of Ramkishor by Narayni Dibch being proved to have been duly authorised; and as, under the above opinion of the Pundits, it appeared that two adoptions in the family of the same man are valid; that an adopted son succeeds collaterally as well as lineally in the family of his adoptive father; and that Ramkishor was the rightful heir to the whole 4 anna estate in contest.; the claim preferred to it by the appellants was pronounced to be inadmissible. The appeal was in consequence dismissed by the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, with costs. (a),—21st August, 1807, S. D. A. R. vol. I. p. 209. (a) The right of a son by adoption to inherit from his collaterals in the family of his adoptive father, was established by the decision in this cause, as wall as the lawfulness of two successive adoptions, by the widows of the same person, under authority for that purpose from their husband, See the Decision in the case—Narayni Debeh, Appellant versus Hurkishor Rai, Respondent—8. D, A. Rep. vol. I, p, 39; and Mr. Colebrooke's note on the same,
