________________
INHERITANCE AND PARTITION.
Benares in the same circumstances would come under the Dayablāga of Jimūtavāhana.
In 1873 there was a case of Marwari Jainas of Ahmednagar--Bhagwan Das Tejmal v. Rajmal, 10 B. H. O. R. 241. A man died, leaving a widotv. The midor also died. Then the relations and panches claimed to adopt a son to the man. It Tras held that the custom was not proved. “When amongst Hindus (and Jains are Hindu dissenters) some custom different from the normal Hindu Law and usage of the country in which the property is located and the parties reside, is alleged to exist, the burden of establishing its antiquity and invariability is placed on the party averring its existence, and it should be proved by clear and unambigu. ous evidence above suspicion.”
In 1878, in Sheo Sing Rai v. Dakho, 1 A. 688, a Dleerut case, a sonless Jaina widow was held to take "an absolute interest at least in the selfacquired property of her husband;" also to adopt, without the permission of the husband or his kinsmen. It was held that she could validly adopt a (laughter's son. This was certainly a triumph of Jaina Law; but, on the ground of special custom, proved by evidence of the community. The following may be noticed, however.
The High Court say, at p. 700:--"The Jainas have no written law of inheritance. Their lat
