________________
18
"">
her husband, for the performance of rites. The sanction of her husband or the direction of the yatis or priests is not essential.' Another question was raised (but left undecided) as to the widow's right under the Jaina Law to alienate or give away her property after the adoption. The claim of Jaina Law was asserted and upheld in this case.
THE JAINA LAW
In 1863, a case was fought in Shahabad (Bihar), sub nomine Chandan Koer v. Padmanath Koer. In this, a Jaina joint brother succeeded by survivorship to his brother. The widow of the deceased brother claimed to succeed by Jaina custom. The case was compromised. But the point is that the existence and the authority of Jaina Law as distinct from Hindu Law were asserted.
In Mahabeer Pershad v. Musammat Kundun Koer (29 June 1867), 8 W. R. 116, it was laid down that the Jainas are governed by the Hindu Law of inheritance applicable in that part of the country in which the property is situate. We submit, with all deference, that this decision involves a two-fold error. It deprives Jainas of a right to be governed by their own law. And it makes their position worse than that of Hindus. Thus, a Mitakshara Hindu of Benares, acquiring land in Bengal would he governed by the Mitakshara Law; whereas under the decision in 8 W. R. 116, a Jaina from
