Jaina Law Bhadrabahu Samhita

Author(s): J L Jaini
Publisher: ZZZ Unknown

Page 98

APPENDIX B.
that a Jaina ridow can make a second adoption to her husband, after the death of the first adopted boy. It pas an Aligarh case and, again, based on special custom, and not on Jaina Law.
In 1889, Monik Ohand Golcoha v. Jagat Scllani I'ran Kumari Bibi and others, 17 C. 518, the custom of adopting, without the husband's permission, amung Jaina Ostala ridotto was held to be tribal, as it prevailed in Jaipur, Jodhpur, &c., not only among Jaina but Vaishnava widors also. A carious remark is made at p. 520 :" It has been proved in this case that the Saraogis are nearly & sect of the Jaipns." Perhaps it was not known to the Court that Saraogi is only a corruption of Shravaka, a Jaina Layman.
It was held also that change from Jainism to Hinduism did uot affect a Jaina's personal rights or status.
In 1892, in Peria Ammani v. Krishna Sami, 16 M. 182, a Jaina widow of Tanjore was held not to have proved ber power to adopt without her husband's permission, Best, J. said: “The parties to the suit yere natives of Southern India whose ancestors were converted to Jainism," and on this ground the case was distinguished from Rithourn Lala v. Soojun Mull Lallah, 9 Mad. Jur. 21. The same Judge held :-"if a Jaina widow succeeds to her husband's property absolutely and has the right to dispose of it as she likes, the adoption of & son to herself who may succeed to such property would be valid."
In 1894, in Shambhunath v. Gyan Chand, 16 A. 379 (a Sabaranpur case), it was held that an Agarwal Jaina widot could alienate her husband's non-ancestral property, but that she has no such power over ancestral property.
In 1897, in Mandit Koer v. Phool Chand, 2 O. W. N. 154 (a Barh case), a custom for a Jaina sonless vidow to take absolute interest in husband's property was held not to be proved.
In 1899, in Harnabh Pershad v. Mandil Das, 27 O. 379, the