________________
21
perty inherited by her from her father. It was held that the custom was not proved.
INHERITANCE AND PARTITION.
In 1880, in Bachebi v. Makhan, 3 Á 55, a custom was set up that a Jaina widow could make a gift of her husband's property. The custom was held not proved. The case was from Mainpuri, and the parties were Bindala Jainas, who are found in Mainpuri, Etah and Farrukhabad districts. The property was ancestral, and thus the decision was not against Sheo Singh Rai v. Dakho, 1 A. 688.
In 1886, Laklımi Chand v. Gatto Bai, 8 A. 319, laid down that a Jaina widow can make a second adoption to her husband after the death of the first adopted boy. It was an Aligarh case, and, again, based on special custom and not on Jaina Law.
In 1889, Manik Chand Golecha v. Jagat Settani Pran Kumari Bibi and others, 17 C. 518, the custom of adopting, without the husband's permission. among Jaina Oswala widows, was held to be tribal, as it prerailed in Jaipur, Jodhpur, etc., not only among Jaina, but Vaisnava widows also. A curious remark is made at p. 526: "It has been proved in this case that the Saraogis are merely a sect of the Jains." Perhaps it was not known to the Court that Saraogi is only a corruption of Srâvaka, a Jaina layman.
It was held also that change from Jainism to Hinduism did not affect a Jaina's personal rights
or status.
