WYAWASTHA-DARPANA. 306 and before the appeal had been head, and on the 28th of February 1885, Japanadia died. He left no natural born issue, but two wives, Rungsma and Alekana, and a boy who had been brought up in his house, and who is said to be his adopted son, named Lutchmiputty, The question then arose, who was entitled to succeed to the estate of Једанаада : the question of what the estate of Joanadia consisted, that is, whether he was entitled to the whole, or only half of the estate of Veneatadry, still remaining unsettled. With respect to the right of succession to Jaganadha, it is not disputed that, if he left a son, whether natural born, or legally adopted, such son would be entitled to succeed; that, if he left no son, but an undivided brother, such brother would be entitled to succeed; that, if he left no son nor undivided brother, the widow, or one of the widows, would be entitled to succeed.* On the death of Jaganadha, Ramanadha set up a title to the whole estate of F.encatadry, alleging that he and Jaganadha were undivided brothers, and that Jaganadia had left no issue, natural born or adopted. - Rungana at first acquiesced in the claim of Ramanada, it being alleged by her that she was deceived by Ramanadha, who got authority to act tor her. Lutchmiputy was a child of about six years old, and no claim was brought forward on his behalf. Atchama, however, instituted a suit, claiming the whole of the estate of Jayanadia, and insisted that she was entitled to inherit. Afterwards, Itamanadha and Runganu having quarreled, the claim of Lutchiniputty was advanced The Sudder Adawlut decided that Jaganadia and Jor. , tastha were undivided brothers, and that lutchmiputy was not the adopted son of Jayanadia; of consequently Ramamadha was entitled to the whole inheritanco which had come from Fencitadry; and against this decree the present appeals are brought. The question for our decision relates, first, to the estate of Wencatadry; ബ്യൂയേnl, to the succession of Jaganadha. # - The conflicting parties are:—First, Lutchmiputty, who claims the whole inheritance which one from Poncatadry, on the ground that Jayanadha was the only adopted son of Vencatadry, and that he, Luschmiputly, is the adopted son of Jayanadha, Secondly, Atchama, who insists that Lutohmiputty was not well adopted, and that she, as eldest widow, is entitled to succeed to the inheritance of Jayanadia. Thirdly, stungama, who maintains the case of Lutchmiputty, but insists that, if he is not the adopted son, she is entitled to share with Atchama, in the succession of Jayawadha. Lastly, Rananadha, who mantains the decree as it stands. As far as concerns Ramamadha, his whole title depends on the validity of his adoption. If not well adopted, he was neither co-heir with Jayanada, nor heir to Jaganadha. The first question, therefore, is, as to the validity of a second adoption, the first adopted son still existing, and remaning in possession of his character of a son. This appears to have been long a point of great doubt in Hindoo law, and is stated by the Judges in this case, to be unsettled. Three classes of authority have been referred to:—first, The opinions of the Pundits, secondly, The native authorities as found in the Hindoo treatises; and thirdly, The European authorities. First. As to the Pundits; there is a considerable difference of opinion amongst them. • If there be many widows, they inherit simultaneously and equally ; the eldest of them does not alone succeed to the exéîusiom of the rest. §•• ante, p. 53.
