Á y .۴ ني vyÁvẩsritistiáRPANA. voi
- "} سہ ، ، ، ، سب ، ، ، ، ، ، ، Anاسلام
\ o Verens :א #
- io ". . . . . . . . . nonu.
- And Atchama (widow) ... . . . . . . . . . . . Appellant, à Fernas Ramanadha Baboo, 灘嚇翰 * * * 漫 ● ● 罗象鲁 锤弹够 酸翰象 零粤● 赖够熊 * * * * * * 翰魏盛 驚*齡 Respondent.
- The RIGHT hoN. T. PEMBERTON LEIGH:
The question in these appeals relates to a very large property in the Northern Circars, which, in the year 1798, belonged to a zemindar named Veneatadry. Wencatadry, being childless, on the 2nd of April 1798 adopted as his son a boy Jaganadha. On this occasion he signed a paper bearing date the 7th of April 1798. In this paper, after reciting the adoption, he proceeds to say: “Therefore, be it believed, that I have executed this, my tutelar deity bearing witness, that Jaganadha Naidoo is Auckdar, or heir, to my zemindary mourasy, to my wealth and debts; and that I have it not in my power, on any account whatever, to make over (the same) to any other person besides him (Jagunadha Naidoo.)” Of the fact, or the validity of this adoption, no question is made. He afterwards became desirous of adopting another boy, mained Ramanadha, and of dividing his property between them, It is said by the appellants, and many witnesses have sworn, that he consulted certain Pundits as to the validity of a second adoption, and was advised by them that a second adoption could not be legally made. It was contended by the appellants that, upon the whole evidence it was to be inferred that, in consequence of this opinion, although he brought up Ramanadha as his son, he never adopted him with those religious ceremonies which were nocessary, in order to constitute a valid adoption, according to the Hindoo law. We have no doubt, however, that he did whatever was necessary to constitute a valid adoption, if such second adoption could, by the Hindoo law, be valid. In 1815, Jaganadia attained the age of eighteen, when he came of age. After this, in 1816, Veneatadry made a new division, between his two sons, Ramanadha being still under age, and, as it seems, about nine years old, Jaganadha took possession of the property so allotted to him; and Keneatadry seems to have remained in possession of what was allotted to Rananadia. In the course of the year 1316, Wencatadry died. Jayanadia chiಖ್ಖd the whole of the property of Wencalady, alleging that the adoption of Rananadia was invalid, and at all events did not constitute him a co-heir, 機 The first of the suits, now in controversy, began in 1820, being a suit instituted by Rasasadis against Jaganada, to establish his right to that portion of the property which had been allotted to him, in his character of adopted son, by Wencatadry. In 1824, a decision was pronounced against Bananadia, from which, however, he appealed,
- 54
CAğı | on tha ఘొషి
