WYAWASTHR-DARPANA. 1676. Rankities Burkey, t Guardias y Leur Cisador Ber, siwr, adoptados of Realsłłise Delya, deceased) appellant, versus Moussnat &emotes Delya, and other, respondents. CᎪ8Ꭼ$ I. This was an action brought by Maussaf Ramlukkhee Debya, against the present respon- Bearing on the dentand others, to obtain possession of a one anna, thogunda, one ours, one has share of a Wyavasthá No, 582. three and half anna share in the Zemindary of Kishenram Roy Choudery, of a five anna, six yunda, tow cowree share of a tabol known by the name of the said Kishenram Roy, and of a five anna, six and half gunda share in a talook known by the name of Nursingdeb Roy, The plaint set forth that the above lands had been the property of the plaintiff's father. in-law Kalikaprosaud, who died in the month of Pous 1228, B. S., and of whom she and a son adopted by her were the heirs; that however on the occurrence of the aforesaid death, the , defendant Sreemotee Debya, daughter of her father-in-law, with Cally Prosaud Gangooly her husband, had conspired with the other defendants, and taken possession of the estate; that, therefore, she sued in her capacity of guardian of her son who was the rightful proprietor, Cally Prosaud Gangooly, one of the defendants, stated that the deceased Kalikaprosaud had given his daughter in marriage to him, and, having no son living, had made over to him, the defendant, by a deed of gift, all the lands included in the present plaint, with some others situated in the pergunnah of Shaylistanugur and a talook known by the name of Kishenram Roy, in the perguniah of Arungpore, reserving only two mouzahs for his own maintenance, and one for that of the plaintiff, his deceased son's wife; that his father-in-law had, at the same time, executed an engagement promising that, on his death, the two mouzahs, which he had set aside for his own support, should belong to his daughter Sreemotee; that he, the defendant, had obtained possession through the aforesaid deed during Kalikaprosaud's life time, and had paid the jumma ever since, He further stated that the husband of the plaintiff had died without giving powers to his wife to adopt a son; and that, therefore, the adoption on which the plaintiff rested her plea must be held altogether illegal. The plaintiff, dissatisfied with the Zillah Court's decision, appealed to the Provincial Court of Dacca; and Cally Prosaud dying, his widow Sreenotee, proving herself to be his heir, maintained the suit. The first Judge of the Court, ageding in the opinion of the third Judge, gave judgment to the cfsect that the dismission of the appellant's claim should be affirmed, but the declaration as to the illegality of the adoption of Iswur Chunder should not be maintained. The appellant's plea of special appeal admitted in the Sudder. Dewanny Adawlut, The following interrogatories were put to the court pundit, and answers received from him. Question 1st-A Hindoo inhabitant of Bengal died, leaving a daughter, whose husband is alive” an adopted son of his son who died before him; and some years after his death his daughter brought forth a male child. In this case, according to the law, as current in Bengal, will his inheritance devolve on the adopted son of his son, or on his daughter's son 7 if on both, what aro their respective shares? - Question 2nd.—A Hindoo widow, having obtained her husband's sanction to adopt a son, does so ten years after his death. Is the adoption which took place after so long a period from her husband's death good and legal, and is such adopted son entitled to inherit from his adopting mother's father-in-law or otherwise? 鲇 97
