vyAvASTHA-DARPANA. 1056 Noisies) as the son of his eldest wife Heera-monee Doway, that he (the Rajak) wopli give the whole of his property to Goneemolis Po, if he did not thereafter beget a son. In case the Rajah should have a son born to him, it was stipulated that he and Gopeenošus should share the property equally between them—and if more than one son should be born, that they and Gopeenahan should be equal participators in the Rajah's estate. Some years after the adoption, Rajah Wałishen had a son by one of his younger wives. This was Rajkrishna, who upon the death of his father became Rajah Rajkrishna. * Rajah Mułkiełen, some time after the birth of Rajkrishna, made a will, by which he left hio adopted son Gopeemohun property to a considerable amount, although but little in comparison with the half of his estate. He made several bequests, and gave every thing not particularly disposed of, to his son Rajkrishna, & Upon the death of Nubkishen, Gopeemohun Deb filed a bill against Rajah Rajkrishna, by which he prayed an account, and claimed a moiety of Wałishen's estate. This claish was made as well upon the ground of his having been adopted, as upon that of the agreement which had been entered into by Nubkishen. 疹 * Rajkrishna did not, by his answer, either admit brideny the adoption, nor did he either admit or deny the execution of such an agreement as had been set forth;-but he relied upon the will which Wubićishen had made in his favor. - © 帶 Gopeenokun, upon a hearing of the cause, was declassed to have been duly adopted. The agreement which had been entered into by Rajah Nubkinhen could have been satisfactorily proved—but the parties were advised to come to a settlement of their dispute. This they did upon the footing of the agreement, and thereby revoked the will of Rajah Nubkishen as far as it related to the interests of Rajak Rajkriaäna or Gopeernohun 1Deb, I believe this cause would have been decided by the Court, as it was settled by the parties themselves, that is according to the agreement which had been entered into dy Rajah Wubkishru ; but the question is, what would have been done, if such an agreement had never existed? To this I can only answer that the counsel of Gopeenokun had not any doubt. From what had been declared upon the bench, and from the law as it was understood at that day, we were quite certain that Rajah Nubkishen would not have been suffered, by his will, to deprive the son whom he had adopted, of his rights—and Gopeemohun Deb, if he had failed in proving the agreement, would, notwithstanding the will, have been declared entitled to one third of the estate.—Mucil. Cons. H. L. pp. 230—233. Gopeenokun Tagore versus Sebun Cower and othera. II, Saumchurn Doss died in 1810, leaving Sebun Cower (one of the defendants) his widow, and an adopted son, Goberchurn" Doss, (the second son of the body of Samol Doss, ) his heir and legal representative. As to Samol Doss, who had a moiety of the undivided patrimonial estate which was mortgaged, there was no doubt of his right to bind his moiety; and he was now, since his death, properly represented before the Court by the defendants Jugernath Doss and Bulram Doss, his two infant sons and heirs. By Saumchurn's adoption of Samol Doss's second son Goborchurn" the latter ceased by the Hindu law to be considered as a son and heir of Samol Doss, his natural father, but became the son and heir of Saumchurn, his adopting father.
- This should be Goberdhun, Goberchurn is an evident mistako.
92 毒性
