WYAWAS THA-DARPANA. 1 of 4 Соревмани Dei v. եպւե Rajkishen. Case I. A Hindu having adopted a son, cannot disinherit such son by will-East's Notes, Case 75. +ါး Cons, H. II. pp. 280—288; ante, p. 1056. Vyavastka, Nu, 60: II. A similar ៤តែឆ្នៃ was passed in Sreemutty Joymony Dossy terru, Sreemutty Shilosoondry Dossy—Fide Fulton's Reports, p. 75. Ante, p. 970, Prasbullub Gokul v. Deokishen Tooljaran. III, A Hindu having adopted a son, and from feelings of anger against him made a will in favor of him and his brothers, it was held that such will did not affect the adoption, and that he was not by reason of the existence of the will liable for his own father's debts.-24th June 1824. Bombay S. D. A. Sel. Rep, p. 4. Morley's Digest, vol. I. p. 25. 4. Arnarir!lum. Pillay v. Jyasamy Pillay. I. The adoption of an only son, once made, cannot be set aside, Both the giver and receiver Cases in adoptions thereby commit sin. Case 5 of 1817.-1 Mad, Dec. 154. Morley's Digest, vol. Hearing on the I. p. 24. Wyawaistliá. Nt*, (X}}} Anndram and others v. Katey Pandey and others, II. The adoption of an only son, once made, cannot be invalidated.—30th of June 1825. S, D. A. R. vol. IV. p. 70. - Srce Briji hookhunier Muharaj v. Sree (okoplottanjee lfujaraj. I. Adoption, performed according to the ceremonies of the Trilus and Shāstras, cannot be set aside (: from any want of formality, or other cause, should the person opposing it be ever so near a kin Iိမ်းါ the to the adopter—5th of November 1817. Borradale's Reports, vol. I, p. 181. Morley's Digest, Vyavuth.” No tol vol. I. q. 24. Huehnt Rao Manker v. Goband Rao Bulutumf, II. Where an adoption is made contrary to the provisions of the Hindu law, the sin lies with the person giving, and not with the party receiving, and it cannot be set aside, as an adoption, having once been effected according to the forms of the Feda, cannot on any pretence be annulled. —1st Sessions, 1823, Borradale's Reports, vol. II. p. 78. See Morley's Digest, vol. i. p. 24. Bhaskker Buchaice v. Naroo Raghoo Math. III. Where a widow received instructions from her husband to adopt a son, and in accordance with,them applied to her brother-in-law and his relations for a son, and they refused to give her one, it was held, that either length of time or aster the decease of her husband, nor the adoption having taken place at other than the place of residence of the parties, nor want of permission of the Ruling authorities, are sufficient grounds for setting aside an adoption once made with sufficient ceremonies; and that a son so adopted becomes heir to the whole of his adoptive father's property. 1826. Bombay S. D. A. Sel. Rep, p. 24. Fide Morley's Digest, vol. 1, p. 26. Ranee Bhudr Sher Bhudr v. Roop Shunker Shnnkerjee. As a lawfully begotten son mayorenounce his share in the estate of his father, even so an (.. . s ---- ہم 治,雷 处,列 卷 - „HiFL adopted son is at liberty to resign his right to the property of his adoptive father, although he cannot Bearang on thi free himself from adoption, and should he so refuse to take the property, and if the property to Vyavastha. No 60 which he succeeds be a share of a divided heritage, the adopter's widow will succeed to it. 18th, May 1824. Borr. Rep. vol. II. p. 656. Morley's Digest, vol. I. p. 24. Саве Mussummat Taramunee Dehea, v. Deb Naraew Roy and anotÁer. xt Bearing * the 10 July 1824, 3 S. D. A. Rep. 387, p. 26. See ante, p. 931, Vyavsatla', Ne, 00;
