WYAVASTBA-DARPANA. 1984 LLLLLLLLSYLLLLL LLLLS LL LLLLLLLS LLLLLMMMLLL LLLLLL LL LLLLLL LL AAA LLLLLLLL sts adoption and it tromano aeries abw not to be found, it most ouaw that as adopted consorio to inherit, is, at this day, absolutely abolished. To this conclusion, such a meisas,that which our Pundit has had recourse to, for the purpose of reconciling disorsses, must obviously lead; and a denial of those rights, which are admitted by every day's practice to exist, and which the Pundits themselves (except is special instancely never soil to acknowledge, müst be the consequence. . . - As the Supreme Court Pundits had differed in opinion, and as the case was of much importance on account of the magnitude of the estate contended for, and on account of the precedent which it was to form, I determined to get the best opinions which were to be obtained. It was submitted to the Pundits of the Sudder Delessay Adawist, put as the case of A, B, and C, and the adopted son. They both declared that a son adopted by C, the widow of B, was, according to the statement, entitled not only to the estate of B, but to the estate of A, the father of B. After this, Mr. William Hay Macnaghten, at my desire, translated the case and circulated it for the opinions of the Pundits attached to the Courts in the Mofusil.-They are all printed in the appendix-In the statement which was sent to the Pundits of these Courts, the name Ramkishna was substituted for Gourbullub ; the name Ramhurry for Rajbullub ; the name Ramtunoo for Moocundbullub; and the name Hurrypryah for Joymonee. The defendants moved for a new trial of the issues; and a new trial was granted, the defendants taking the order upon the terms of paying, within a certain time, the costa of the former trial to the plaintiff. These terms were not complied with, and the cause was set down for further directions. On the 14th of March 1824, it came on to be heard. The defendants did not appear; and the complainant Gourbullub was declared entitled to the estates of Moocundhullah and of Rajai Rajballsb, and the defendants decreed to account with him accordingly. No doubt existed with respect to the right of Gourbullub; nor was there any reason to suppose that a second trial could have produced a result different from the first-Cons. H. L. pp. 169-166. - Roxank-The above case was translated and circulated to the civil Courts of 46 Zillahs, and to the provincial Courts of Benates, Bareilly, Calcutta, Moorshedabad, Patna, and Dacca; and the Pandits of those Courts wrote and delivered 51 Wyavastiás or law opinions. Only in five of those opinions the adopted son, whose name was mentioned to be Ramkrishna instead of Gourbullub, was declared not to have a right to inherit the estate of his adopting grandfather, but only to the estate of his adopting father.”—And in one of these five Wyaraathi, the reconciliation and doctrine of the Datta&a-ciandrikã, ^vide supra, p. 1090,) were adhered to, and, on £be greund of the datasks sess in the present (talk) age not being endued with transcendent qualities, the deitaha son Gourishab was declared not entitled to the estate of a bands. In the four other Wyavastiás, the doctrine of Deesis and the rest, as quoted in the Dáyabhāga and other works, being followed, the adopted son was declared entitled only to his adoptive father's .* and not to • In the above doctrine as well as in the texts cited in the Dáyodge, the dataks son being LLLLLLLL SLkkk kkkS kkkS kk kkS LLLLLLLLL LLLLLL LLLLSLLLLLLS LL L GGGG LLL LLLL LLL LLLLLLL 0S Bús østabis of bås algoenatothes on the contrary, the legal signification of the torm ‘son’ being the male issue as far as the great-grandson, (see ante, p.3%) it seems to be consistent with the law that 99
