WYAWAS THA-DARPANA. . 1058 The other moiety of the mortgaged premises appeared to be in Saumchurn; and the question was whether he was properly represented, so as to bind that moiety. The title to that moiety was evidently in his adopted son Goberthurn, the infant, who was properly brought before the Court by the bill, but who was no party to the mortgage deed, nor, indeed, could have been by reason of his infancy. Sebun Cower, the widow of Saumchurn, and by whom the mortgage was executed, had clearly no interest in the estate, having only a right of maintenance from the infant son, and her power to execute such a mortgage could only be supportod by actual necessity, either for the debts of her husband, or for the performance of his shrid, or other necessary religious observances, or for the absolute maintenance of herself and family; but none of these things were proved in evidence, nor were they even recited in the deed, though it was probably enough, from the circumstances of the family, that the sum might, in whole or in part, have been necessary to be raised, both for debts and the due support of the family, 11that February 1817–East's Notes, Case No. 64. - Raitee Kishemmunee, Ajpellant, versus Εψει Isoodophl Singh and Rajah Jamleeram 8ingi, Respondents. I. This action was instituted by the respondents against the appellant and Rance Jaymunee, to establish their proprietory right to Turis Kunkurakurpore, &c., situate in Zillah Rajshalye, წ$%, 58;) יואני יסo , and to recover the profits which had been unduly appropriated from the estate by the defendants. The plaint was to the following effect. Ranee Kishenmunee had been left by the will of her late husband, Maharajah Bishennath loy Bahadoor, sole possessor and manager of all his property, real and personal. She was his third wife; and in the same will her deceased husband invested her with authority to adopt a son, by reason of his having died childless. . The estate now claimed had been mortgaged in her husband's life time to one Jugonohun, and the period fixed for the foreclosure of the mortgage had nearly arrived under the provisions of Regulation XVII of 1806, when Kishenmunee, with a view to avert that event, made a conditional sale of the lands to the plaintists for the sum of 65,901 rupees. A regular deed of sale was executed, and a writter, agreement was entered into by the seller, that, in the event of her inability to repay the sun with interest, within the period of one year, the sale should become absolute, of the purchase money, 2570 rupees were paid to Kishenmuuce for the purpose of defraying the expenses attendant on the worship of the idols, and the remainder was, with her consent, applied to the liquidation of the mortgagee's debt, and deposited in court for that purpose. On the expiration of the term of one year, as the time had arrived for making the sale absolute, the plaintiff, made a summary application to the Judge of Rajshahye to enforce the written agreement. Accordingly a written notice was served on Kishenmunee. The defendant, Kishenmunee, replied by admitting the loan as stated "by the plaintiffs, but she averred in defence that the loan was usurious; that she had, with the permission of her husband, adopted a son named Gobind Chunder Roy, whose right to the ustate was indefeasible, and who would not legally be deprived of the property by any act of hers, which might prove contrary to the rules of Hindoo law, that she had offered repayment of the money borrowed, the receipt of which, however, the plaintiffs had evaded. The defendant Joymunee replied by denying the allegation of the other defendant. On the 27th of July, 1519, the Senior Judge of the Court of Appeal gave judgment in this case, and possession of the estate clained was degreed to the plaintiffs, with costs. An appeal was preferred to the Court of Sudder Dewanny Adawlut from the above decision ('ASES bearing on the Vayvasthás No, 58,
