The Calcutta Weekly Notes. Monday April 20 1914

In this case a Hindu left a Will whereby he authorised his two widows to make an adoption in the following words : You should adopt a boy. wheever it strikes that our samastanam (family) should continue." The power of adoption was exercised by the surviving of the two widows after the death of the other and the Privy Council held t hat on the death of one of the widows the power ceased. [...] Applying these principles to the case his Lorship overruled the centention in support of the adoption that the testa orbeing a Hindu must have wished at all events to have a son to offer funeral oblations to his spirit after his death and that 'therefore the most reasonabl interpretation of the power from the point of view of a Hindu was to hold that failing both one of the widows should ad [...] After the Munsif returned his findings the case was again remanded and after the Munsif submitted his second finding a preliminary objection was taken to the competency of the appeal on the ground of the defect in the vakalatnama. [...] The High Court further refused the necessary certficate to the Plaintiffs to enable them to appeal to His Majesty in Council on the ground thaw the subject matter of the suit in the Court of First Instance and of the Appeal was Rs. [...] For the Respondent is was submitted on the authority of the ruling of the Privy Council in the case of Amirtalall v. Rajanikant L. R. 2 I. A. 113 that the two daughters succeed d to the estate of their fathe r as joint-tenants and that Kasiswari took by survivorship the share of Harasundari on her death and that she not being a reversioner could not have the benefit of Art.