________________
TUE JAINA LAW
In 1892, in Peria Ammani v. Krishna Sami, 16 M. 182, a Jaina widow of Tanjore was held not to have proved her power to adopt without her husband's permission. Best, J., said: "The parties to the suit were natives of Southern India, whose ancestors were converted to Jainism," and on this ground the case was distinguished from Rithicum Lalla 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 a son to herself, who may succeed to such property, would be valid."
In 1894, in Shimbhu Nath v. Gyan Chand, 16 A. 379 (a Saharanpur case), it was held that au Agarvala Jaina widow could alienate her husband's non-ancestral property, but that she had no such power over ancestral property.
In 1897, in Mandit Koer v. Phool Chand, 2 C.W.N. 154 (a Barh case), a custom for a Jaina sonless widot to take absolute interest in her husband's property was held not to be proved.
In 1899, in Harnabh Pershad y. Mandil Das, 27 C. 379, the homogeneity of the Jainas was recognised by holding that Jaina customs of one place were relevant as evidence of the existence of the same custom amongst Jainas of other places. It was rightly held that "Jaina" meant “Saraogi.”
