পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ দ্বিতীয় খণ্ড.pdf/৪৫৯

vyAvASTHA-DARPANA. 4: 1 106 the 3rd son Gunganaraen left neither issue nor a widow; the 4th son Lukkhoenaraen left two sons, viz. Shamchunder and Rooder Chunder (plaintiffs.) The plaintiffs, in support of their claim to the 4 anna share in dispute, alleged, that the defendant, Narayni Debeh, had not been duly empowered to adopt Ramkishor: that, on the decease of Nundkishor, adopted by Ruttunmala, the Zemindar's elder widow, and therefore by law proprietor of the Whole 4 anna share, the plaintiffs were his heirs, as nephews of Kishenkishor, his adoptive father. The defendants, first, contradicted the assertion of the plaintiffs with respect to the illegality of Ramkishor's adoption; second, insisted, that the plaintiffs were only sons of the half brothers of the adoptive father of Nundkishor, and the distant degree of relationship which they bore to Nundkishor, would not ent tie them to succeed to his property. On referring to the proceedings in another cause before tried by the Zillah Court, it appeared to the Zillah Judge, that the question at issue had been already virtually decided. In the cause alluded to, a claim had been preferred against Narayni Debeh, by Joogulkishor (who was adopted by Gopaulkishor, brother of Kishenkishor) for 3 annas of it, by right of succession to Nubkishor. Evidence was at that time taken as to the adoption of Ramkishor by Narayni Debch under authority from her husband; and it was deposed by witnesses, thot permission had been granted her verbally, in their hearing. On the ground of this being related by the witnesses from , memory, after a long lapse of time, and of its being thought that suspicion attached to some documents brought forward on the occasion, it was not thought proper to admit the adoption. A referefoe was then made to the pundit ĉı the Court, as well as to those of the adjacent Zillahs, and of the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, to ascertain whether the succession to the 2 annas, held by Nundkishor, was wested, by the Ilindoo law, in Narayni Debeh, the surviving widow of Kishenkishoi ; or in Joogulkikhor, the adopted son of Kishenkishor's brother; or in Sham ("hunder and Rooder Chunder, sons of his half brother ? The answers returned by the pundits of several Zillahs were contradictory; but the solution of the question, as given by the pundits of Zillah Tiperah and the Sudder Dewanny Awdalut, was that Joogulkishor, as adopted son of Kishenkishor's brother, was legal heir to the 2 anna share ; and judgment was passed accordingly in Joogulkishor's favour. In the present case, therefore, the Zillah Judge being of opinion that the plaintists (Sham Chunder and Rooder Chunder) were not entitled to any part of the 4 anna share in dispute, judgment was given against them in the Zillah Court, with costs. The plaintiffs appealed from the above decision to the Provincial Court of 1)acca. It appeared that, on the 4th of December 1801, a decree was passed in appeal by the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, in a cause between Narayni Debeh and Hurkishor (son of Joogulkish or who was adopted by Gopaulkishor, ) on which appeal the pundits of the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, gave an opinion, that the heir of Nundkishor would be Hurkishor, not Narayni Debeh, as she was not mother, but stepmother; but that if she had authority to make an adoption, then Ramkishor, having been adopted by her, would be heir to Nundkishor, as his adoptive brother. The Provincial Court were satisfied with the evidence given in the former cause, in the Zillah Court of Rungpore, with respect to the authority for adopting Ramkishor, and held it to be established that he was duly and legally adopted; and it being in consequence considered that the appellants were entitled to no part of the 4 anna share, the appeal against the zillah decree was dismissed with costs. On a further appeal by Sham Chunder and Rooder Chunder to the Sudder Dewanny Adaw. lut (present H. Colebrooke and J. Fombelle), the pleas set up by them against the foregoing