vyavastha.DARPANA. '918 Thakoor and his associates; and that, even if it had been proved, it could be of no benefit to the appellant, inasmuch as it was illegal without the sanction of her husband, which, both by her own deposition in a former case, and Hurnath's papers produced in this, it was evident never was given, or intended to begirl ; that the power confered by Hurmath was explicitly confined to the son of Joogulkishore, Shilkishore, or, if the father were unwilling to give his son in adoption, the son of some other Brahmin; that there was not a word in relation to repeated adoption at the widow's pleasure, in the event of casualty to the first adopted son; and that without a distinct permission, she could not of herself do that legally. On these grounds Mr. Rattray affirmed the decree of the Provincial Court, awarding possession of the estate to the Respondeuts.—18th of November 1828. S. D, A. B. Vol. IV, pp. 818, 819. A Bindoo widow claimed a moiety of an ancestral estate as heir to her deceased husband, who had given her, as she alleged, an Anoonully puttra, which, however, shehad never exercised. The Court, considering that the Anoonutty puttra was altogether unworthy of credit, as no mention has been made of it by the widow for twenty two years after her husband's death, dismissed the claim of the widow, and declared that she was only entitled to maintenance, her husband having died during the life time of his father and brothers. Musst. Hemluta Chowdhooracent, Puddomunea 14th Feb. 1826. S; D. A. R. Vol. IV. p. 19. Bullubakant Chowdhree, Appellant, versus Kishenpria Dattea Chowdrain, } guardian of Muhkani Chowdhree, Respondent, ਾਂA the Na, w,, This case was referred to the principal sudder ameen of the district, who put the following 505, & 508, question to the pundit of the Zillah Court: “A Hindoo householder, of the Telee caste, is possessed of property, ancestral and self, acquired he died childless after an illness of ten or twelve days. One day, when he was in a state of insensibility, the wife of his father's brother, who resided in the same house, and his own wife, brought to him a child of the same family, in the presence of some Brahmin priests, his gooroo, people of the same caste, and a few of the neighbours, and addressed him : "You wished to adopt a son, now receive him.' After calling to him two or three times, he answered ‘yes’ The uncle's wife then took the hand of the sick man,—the father of the boy to be adopted took his son's hand, and put it into that of the sick man. A few hours after, the sick man died. His obsequies were performed by the son thus adopted, to which no objection was made by the defendant. The adopted son entered upon and held possession of the estate of the deceased for three or four months, and lived with his widow, The widow died five months after her husband, On this the defendant, who is the cousin of the deceased on the father's side, ( the defendant and deceased being the sons of whole brothers) took possession of the property. The widow of the deceased's uncle has sued for recovery of possession, in her own right as heir, and as guardian of the adopted son, still a sonor. The boy is admitted to have been upwards of five years old at the time of his adoption. The defendant claims as heir at law to his deceased uncle. State who is entitled to the property of the deceased ? and whether the adoption, as above particularised, is legal or not?” The pundit replied to the following purport: “If any Sapinda (or kinsman connected by an oblation of food) bring his own son, and give him into the hand of a childless man, in the
