WYAVASTHA-DARPANA, . $934 present case that any such consent had been given. Certainly, the giving of it could not be considered established by the simple assertion of the appellant at the time of the adoption, that she had received it ; the more so, as her subsequent statements induced a suspicion of her having had an interested purpose in making such an assertion; that lastly, the consent of others who had a claim to the land was necessary to confirm the adoption; others such as Golůk Naraen Roy, who had stated in his petition, that in default of the adoption the estate belonged to him. The case.coming to a hearing next before the Third Judge of the Court (J. Shakespear, ) on the 8th, 14th, and 15th of January 1824, the following questions were put to the Pundits of the Court, and auswers received. 繆 . Question 1st. If a woman, asserting herself to have received permission from her husband to adopt a son, shall make such adoption, and the granting of such permission be not supported by any other proof than that assertion affords, is the adoption legal 7 Answer 1st.—Such adoption is not legal. Question 2nd.—If an adopted son executes an agreement of the following purport, that his mother is to remain in possession of the property during her life-time, and he is to inherit after her only on the following conditions—that should any serious difference occur between his mother and himself, he is to lose all his rights, and his adoption to be held void; does such a document on the occurrence of such difference confer any legal right on the mother ? Answer 2nd. It does confer such right, because the proprietors of any possessions may dispose of them as they please. . A reference was at the same time made by the Court to the Judge of the city of Dacca, forwarding a copy of the engagement originally made by Debnaraen Roy, and directing that copy to be compared with the original, as entered in the records of the registry, and the oral evidence of as many of the witnesses to it as might be living to be taken and transmitted to the Court. It was also desired, that the answers of those witnesses to any question proposed by Goluk Naraen should be included in the official returns. On the receipt of these a definitive judgment was given on the 10th of July 1824, reciting that there existed nothing like sufficient proof to establish the fact of permission to adopt having been given to the appellant by her husband. Therefore, and for the reasons stated in the decree of the second Judge, it was ordered that the decision of the Provincial Court of Dacca should be reversed, and judgment be passed in favor of the appellant, with costs, 10th of July 1824, S. D. A. Rep. vol. III. pp. 887—890. Who can AND who cANNot BE ADoPTEI). 517 A boy (o), who is of the same caste (a ), and who is not the only 80n of his father (i), and not disqualified, (u), or a prohibited relation (e), is eligible for adoption." 喙 獵 (a) “Of the same caste’—that is, being of the same special caste as the adopter.—It is not
- See ante, p. 922. Pide Macn. H. L. vď I. pp. 66,67. Str. H. L. vol. I. p. 78, D. Mim. Sect. II, § 21; Sect V. § 16 et seq. D. Ch. Sect. I, § 13, 15, 16; Sect. II, § 8.
哆
