________________
IXJERITANCE AND PARTITIOX.
25
rules for llindas .... Aud Jainas aro not bound by these (p. 514 cl scq.) In this case, it was hdd that a married man can be adopted by a Jaina Tridor.
In 1908, in Asharfi Koer v. Rup Chand, 30 A 197 (a Salaranpur case), the judgment, in 29 A 495, was practically bodily incorporated, and the sanie Bench hold that by Jaiva custom a vidow can adopt a married man, that sho can give a son in adoption with Sapinda's consent, and that a widor can adopt without lier husband's permission. This judgment was not upset by the Privy Council, in Rup Chand v. Jambu Pcrsad, 32 A. (1910), p. 247,
The parties were Jaina Agarválas. IIere also the "Dissenters" viet finds oxpression. Their Lordships say at pago 252: "So far as the puro larr applicable to the case was concernod there tas nothing in doubt. There iras no longer any question that by the goncral Hindu lav applicable to tlic trice-born classcs, a boy could not bo adopted after his marriage, and there was no doubt that the Agarwala Jains belonged to one of the tricc-born classes."
So the theory that Jainas arc Hindu dissenters or simply Hindus, has become quite established, and the principle of stare decisis makes its dislodgmont dificult, though by no means impossible. What I want to impress here is this
