________________
84
Southern India. At page 499: "Mahavira discarded clothes and therefore arose Svetambaras and Digambaras." This is entirely wrong. The real explanation is the famine in Northern India in Chandragupta's time which drove the great Bhadrabahu to the South and the Schism was a consequence of this. “Angas and Purvas are denied by the Digambaras" (page 499). Of course this tremendously ignores the elements of the Digambara Jaina tradition. But it must be admitted that a few correct remarks are also made, though they are not given that weight and consideration in the judgment which is their due, e.g., the Jainas reject the Vedas of the Brahmins (Sir Monier Williams); Jainas ought to be excluded from the category of the Hindus (Sir Guru Das Banerji, Ex-Judge of the Calcutta High Court.) But the Jainas cannot agree with the following resume of their history; there were no restrictions to begin with. Then Jainas dissented from Hindus. Then Brahmins laid down restrictive rules for Hindus And Jainas are not bound by these (page 514, et seq). In this case it was held that a married man can be adopted by a Jaina widow.
APPENDIX B.
In 1908, in Asharfi Koer v. Rup Chand, 30 A. 197 (n Saharanpur case), the judgment in 29 A 495 was practically bodily incorporated and the same bench held that by Jaina custom a widow can adopt a married man, that she can give a son in adoption with the Sapindas' consent, and that a Jaina widow can adopt without her husband's permission.
+
This judgment was not upset by the Privy Council in Rup Chandy. Jambu Parsad, 32 A. (1910), p. 247. The parties were Jaina Agarwalas. Here also the "Dissenters" view finds expression. Their Lordships say at page 252: "So far as the pure law applicable to the case was concerned, there was nothing in doubt. There was no longer any question that, by the general Hindu Law applicable to the twice-born classes, a
