WYAWAS THA-DARPANA. 982. Matsunnast Debea, Appellant, versus Deb Naraes and Bishes Parnaud, Respondents. v o This was an action brought by Deb Naraen Roy against appellant. The plaintiff, claim toarin ` ۲ به stated, that of Inder Naraen Roy there had been three sons–Chunder Naraen Roy, Becha vasthā 燃 514 Naraen Roy, and Keerut Narsen Roy, whose representatives were Raj Naraen Roy, Muest, Surda (Saroda) Debea, and Loke Naraen Roy; thatRaj Naraen Roy died in 1198 B. S., leaving his wife, the defendant, authorised to adopt a son; that she had accordingly, in 1805 B. S., adopted the present plaintiff then five years old, conformably to the manner directed in the Shāstras, and, investing him with the Brahmanical thread, had set aside for his support the Meuzah of Rajnugur, and afterwards solemnized his marriage. The defendant replied, that she had never received permission from her husband to make an adoption, either orally or by writing, but that, when Subd Iswuree had brought an action against her, Purmanund, a Brahmin, her family Gooroo and her agent, had advised her to support her case by the expedient of an adoption, and, taking her with him to Dacca, had adopted the plaintiff (whose father was dead,) contrary to all legal rules, from his brother Damoodur, without the attendance of her (the defendant, ) her relatives, and the family priest (poorohit, J that it was clear that one brother possessed no power to give away another brother in adoption ; that although by the advice of the aforesaid Brahmin she had given the mouzah of Rajaugur for the plaintiff's maintenance, still that property remained, though in the plaintiff's name, in her (the defendant's) hands, and on the admission that, at the time when the plaintiff was in friendly terms with her (the defendant, ) she had defrayed the expenses of his marriage, &e., still such payments could not substantiate in any way his claim of adoption; that the plaintiff hail, in the month of Poos 1224 B. S., written an agreement, to the effect “that she, the defendant, should be considered and professed to be owner of the land during her life-time, and after hor death the plaintiff should take her place, and that, should the plaintiff recede from his agreement by bringing any action for the land during the defendant's life-time, his claim to any interest in it should be cancelled, whether of inheritance or otherwise;” and that, lastly, the present action was a direct infraction of the conditions of that agreement, The decree of the second Judge of the Provincial Court recited that the defendant had nu claim beyond that of mere maintenance, The defendant, dissatisfied with this decision, appealed to the Sudder Dewanny, Adawlut, A petition of Goluk Naraen Roy was entered and ordered to be filed on the 2nd of September 1823, the contents of which were detailed in the judgment given by the second Judge of the Court (C. Smith,) and which woo to the following effect: That on an inspection of the proceedings of all the suits connected with the estate, part of which was now contested, as well as of those immediately relating to the impending case, it appeared that the claim of the respondent must be held void. For the agreement bearing date the 23rd of Poos 1244 B. S., was established by abundant evidence; and on the admission of the validity of that agreement, even although the adoption had been strictly legal, the respondent could have no claim during the appellant's life-time, except for the sufficiencies of maintenance; but that the alleged adoption did not seem to the Court to be valid, because it was proved by the evidence that it had been made after the death of the respondent's father, neither of the parents of the respondent, but only his brother, having given him away. That moreover, the consent of her husband was requisite to legalize an adoption made by his wife; and it had not been shown in the 61
