Page.

128. Kullean Sing v. Kirpa Sing et al. S. D. A. Son adopted by verbal declaration

only; this according to the law, as it prevails in Mithila. This a Critrima adoption; not known in Bengal. Lustration dispensed with in Critrima adop

tion.

129. Sreenath Serma v. Radhakaunt, S. D. A. Adopted son excluded from a share in the property in his natural family.

129. Dutnarain Sing and al. v. Rughoobeer Sing, S. D. A. Adopted son is entitled to the share of the person adopting him.

142. Kerutnarain v. Mussummut Bhobinisree, S. D. A. Adoption, as it appears, cannot take place if tonsure has been performed in the natural fathers, or has not been performed in the adopting, father's, family. Child adopted ought not to exceed the age of five years; may be adopted at a more advanced age, if he be nearly related on the paternal side to the adopter.

155. Gowerbullub v. Juggernotpersaud Mitter and al. S. C. Adoption prevented by the death of the father of the boy who had been selected for adoption.

156. Shamchunder and al. v. Narayni Dabee and al. S. D. A. Two widows if duly authorized by their husband to do so, may after his death adopt in succession to each other.

157. Solukhna v. Ramdulol Pande and al. S. D. A. Husband may authorize his widow to adopt a son after the death of one son whom he leaves surviving him.

157. Gourepershad Rai v. Jymala, S. D. A. A husband having adopted a son on account of one wife, may authorize another wife to adopt a son for herself. If she does so after the death of her husband, the two sons so adopted will take the inheritance jointly.

159. Gowerbullub v. Juggernotpersaud Mitter and al. S. C. A widow, whose husband's father survives him, may by the authority of her husband, adopt a son after the death of her husband's father; and the son so adopted, will be entitled not only to the estate of her husband, but to the estate of her husband's father also. This adoption does not seem to require the sanction of the husband's father, he having died leaving neither widow nor child surviving him. Quere. What would be the rights of this adopted son, if the husband of the woman who adopted him had had brothers, i. e. if his father had had other sons? Pundits of the Supreme Court differ in opinion upon the case decided. Pun

Page.

dits of the Sudder Dewannee Adawlut.

Case put for the opinion of Pundits

in the Mofussil. For their opinions from fifty-one different stations, see the Appendix.

166. Ramchunder Chatterjea v. Sumboochunder Chatterjea, S. C.

The Court erro

neously decides that a Brahmin may lawfully adopt the son of his sister.

168. Sree Mootee Dagumbaree Dabee v. Sree Mootee Taramonee Dabee and al. S. C. Adoption under Luckinarain Tagore's will-question as to which of three widows has a right to receive the son in adoption. Executor of Executor recognized by the Supreme Court as the Hindoo Testator's representative. This being a family of Brahmins, and the child adopted being son to the uncle of one of the widows, can that widow of whose uncle the child is son, receive him in adoption? This boy being adopted, and having died, can he now be replaced by another in adoption? Quere.

177. Shamchunder and al. v. Narayni Dabee and al. S. D. A. A man leaves two widows and authorizes them both to adopt. One adopts in virtue of this authority, and she and her adopted son both die. Case not satisfactorily reported. The nature of the authority given by the husband not stated, nor how soon after his death the first adoption was made. After the death of the first widow who adopted, and of her adopted son, the other widow adopts; held that the second adoption is valid; and that the son so secondly adopted is entitled to the whole estate of him, who had authorized his wives to adopt.

181. Gowreepershaud Rai v. Jymala, S. D. A. A childless man gives authority to each of his two wives to adopt. He, in his life time, adopts a son on account of one wife. After his death the other wife, under the authority she had received, adopts a son for herself. Held that the adoption made by the husband himself, did not abrogate the authority which he had given to his wives; and considering the circumstances of this case, that the second adoption was valid. It would seem however, that the adoption by the father himself, after he had given authority to his wives to adopt, would have operated as an ademption of the authority so given, if there had not been reason to infer, that he intended, notwithstanding his own adoption, to continue the power of adopting in his second wife.

184.

Solukhna v. Ramdulol Pande and al. S. D. A. A man having a son by a deceased wife, may authorize his living wife to adopt in case of the death of that son, but not in case of a disagreement between him and the widow.

B

Page.

186. Verapermal Pillay v. Narrain Pillay and al. Decided in the Recorder's Court at Madras. Strictures upon that decision.

195. Gopeemohun Deb v. Rajah Rajecrishna, S. C. Proof that a boy to be adopted did not exceed the age of five years supposed to be necessary; not presumed that the necessary forms have been attended to, although circumstances exist to show that adoption actually took place-semble.

196. Kerutnarain v. Bhobinesree, S. D. A. A boy of the age of eight years may be adopted, if he has not undergone the ceremony of tonsure in the family of his natural, but has undergone it in the family of his adopting father.

216. Gowrbullub v. Juggernotpersaud Mitter and al. S. C. Said that the death of a father who had consented to give his son in adoption, before the gift of the 'boy actually took place, will prevent his (the boy's) being given in adoption. 228. Gopeemohun Deb v. Raja Rajekrishna, S. C. Case arising out of the adoption and will made by Raja Nobkissen; not finally decided by the Court.

265. Raujkisno Bonerjee and al. v. Taraneychurn Bonerjee and al. S. C.

(Master's Office.) Opinion given by the Pundits, concerning the right of a father to make unequal distribution among his sons. See also a conversation between the Supreme Court Pundits and me, upon the same subject, page 260; also Appendix, page 8.

268. Raujkisno Bonerjea and al. v. Taraneychurn Bonerjea and al. Further proceedings on the Master's report, S. C.

269. Soorjecomar Takoor's will, S. C. Property of all descriptions left by the Testator to his brothers, although he had a childless widow surviving; considerations thereon.

271. Eshanchund Rai v. Eshorchund Rai, S. D. A. A Zemindar may give the whole of his Zemindary to one son, making a pecuniary provision for his other

sons.

274. Sham Singh v. Mussumut Umraotee, on the part of Kalee Sur Singh, a minor, S. D. A. By the law as it prevails in Mit'hila, a father cannot, by a deed of gift, unaccompanied by possession, give the whole of his ancestorial immovable property to one son, in exclusion of another. Quere-Does this decision admit that such a disposal of property may be made in Bengal?

Page.

280. Ramkoomar Neaee Bachesputtee v. Kishenkunkar Turk Bhoosun, S. D. A. A man may by the Hindoo law, as it prevails in Bengal, give by Danputra or deed of gift, the whole of his ancestorial immovable property, to his younger, in exclusion of his elder, son.

283. Bhowannychurn Bunhoojea v. the heirs of Ramkaunt Bunhoojea, S. D. A. A Hissanama, or deed of partition, made by a father, and not carried into effect by him, in his life time, is not binding upon the sons after his death. This decision is very unsatisfactory, and seems to have turned entirely on possession not having been given by the father in his life time. If this be settled as law, it must deprive the Hindoo of a right to dispose of his property by will. If the decision implies a denial of the father's right to make an unequal distribution of his property, among his sons, it is directly at variance with the two former decisions. Observations on the conduct of the Sudder Dewannee Adawlut, and other Pundits who were applied to in this cause.

305. Mahoda, widow of Gungagovind Sein v. Kuleani, and two others, S. D. A. A widow, possessing a Talook by the death of her husband, cannot make a gift of it to enure beyond her own life.

310. Bijya Dibeh v. Unpoornah Dibeh, S. D. A. A widow succeeding to an estate, either as heir to her husband, or, upon the death of her son as his heir, has a life interest only; and upon her death, the estate she so succeeded to, in either case, will go to the heirs of her husband. An estate "passes to daughters, for the sake of male issue."

316.

Eshanchund Rai v. Eshorchund Rai, S. D. A. Said to have been received as a precedent which settles the question of a father's right to dispose of his property, even contrary to the injunctions of law, &c.

317. Mr. Colebrooke's opinion respecting the right of a Hindoo to dispose of his property by will.

A 320. Issurchunder Corformah and al. v. Govindchund Corformah and al. S. C. will declared to be well proved, but wholly inoperative except as to one bequest. Except that bequest, all the property left to a Shib, or Idol. The will seems to be that of a madman. See Goculchunder Corformah's will in the appendix.

323. Nubkissen Mitter and al. v. Hurrischunder Mitter and al. S. C. An unequal distribution made o. property by a father not disputed. Land, &c. left for

Page.

the maintenance of an Idol. This disposal by the Testator held good. It appears that a father cannot by his will prevent the descendants from coming to a partition among themselves. In case of a quarrel among the descendants, and a separation; the family idols ordered to be enjoyed by them alternately. The time of enjoyment to be ascertained according to the proportions of the estate which were left by the ancestor to the several descendants. Every thing given by the ancestor to the Idol to accompany the possession of it.

331. Ramdullol Sircar and al. v. Sree Mootee Soonah Dabee and al. S. C. A bequest of property for pious purposes upheld.

335. Radhabullubh Tagore v. Gopeemohun Tagore and al. S. C. All the family property applied to the support and worship of a family Idol permitted. It seems to have been so applied by consent of the sons.

336.

Ramtoonoo Mullick and al. v. Ramgopaul Mullick and al. S. C. Court declared that a Hindoo, "might and could, dispose by will, of all his property, movable and immovable, and as well ancestorial as otherwise"-Appeal—and Decree affirmed by the King in Council. A large sum directed to be applied to pious purposes, according to the Testator's desire.

349. Doe ex dem. Kishnomohun Surmono v. Gopeemohun Tagore and al. S. C. Will of self-acquired property; two sons disinherited (on account of misconduct) by the Testator; each left a legacy of 10,000 rupees only; one son, because deaf and dumb, left 20,000 rupees only; and the whole estate, with the exception of the above legacies, and 30,000 rupees, left for the worship of an Idol, given to four sons equally.

350. Gowerchurn Mullick, by his will disinherited one son on account of his alleged misconduct when serving in a house of agency; left him a small sum of money only. The estate very considerable. The testator's will acquiesced in. The property consisted of movable and immovable, ancestorial and self-acquired.

350.

Woomischunder Pal Chowdry and al. v. Premchunder Pal Chowdry and al. S.C. Will of property supposed to have been self-acquired, leaving six anna's share to two sons, and ten anna's share to two other sons, established. Supposed that the decree would have been the same, had the property been ancestorial; 100,000 rupees left for the purpose of establishing a Shib or family Idol.

356. Rajah Nobkissen's will, S. C. Although the Rajah had a begotten, and an adopted son, he left an ancestorial Talook to the sons of his brother; this act was affirmed by the Court.