Under Burman Buddhist law, adoption requires publicity. Where adoption is inferred from conduct rather than a specific event, especially regarding adults whose adoption disinherits legal heirs, a higher standard of proof for the publicity or notoriety of the relationship is required.

Judgement

Appeal from a decree of the Chief Court (March 12, 1907) reversing a decree of the same Court in its original jurisdiction (May 1, 1906).

The sole question at issue was whether the appellant was the adopted daughter of one U Mya, deceased. U Mya, a Burman Buddhist, died at Rangoon on April 19, 1905, leaving the appellant, who claimed as his adopted daughter, and his two sisters, the respondents.

The appellant was the daughter of U Nyein and Ma Ka, both of whom died—U Nyein about 1896, and Ma Ka in November, 1900. Ma Ka was U Myas sister, and the appellants case was that during Ma Kas last illness she asked her brother to take care of appellant, and that he promised that he would look after her as his daughter; that after Ma Kas death he did in fact treat her in every way as his daughter ; that he gave up his own house in Rangoon and lived with her up to the time of his death in her house, and that he informed a number of people that she was his daughter, or

Law Rep. 36 Ind. App. 192 ( 1908- 1909)

Ma Ywet V. Ma Me 90

adopted daughter. It was also proved that before his death he consulted several persons as to what he should do to ensure appellant getting his property, and that he was on bad terms with respondents, with whom he had business disputes.

The proceeding in which the appeal was brought arose in the form of a contest as to whether appellant or respondents were nearest of kin to U Mya and, as such, entitled to letters of administration to his estate.

On May 25, 1905, the respondents applied to the Chief Court of Lower Burma for letters of administration to the estate of U Mya as being his sisters and sole heirs. On June 9, 1905, a caveat was filed on behalf of the appellant, and on June 19, 1905, the Court ordered the matter to be tried as a regular suit, this being the ordinary procedure where applications for probate or letters of administration are contested.

On July 4, 1905, the appellant filed an application praying that letters of administration might be granted to her, and on July 10, 1905, the Court ordered the two cases to be tried together.

On May 1, 190G, the Chief Court found that the appellant had proved the adoption and ordered letters of administration to be issued to her. The Court relied on the appellants relationship to the deceased, the deceaseds promise to her mother, his leaving his own house and residing with the appellant after Ma Kas death, his proved affection for her and proved desire that she should inherit his property to the exclusion of the respondents, and his references to her before witnesses as his adopted daughter.

The Appellate Court reversed this finding on the ground that though no particular ceremony is required for adoption among Burman Buddhists, yet some overt act or speech on the part of the person adopting is necessary, and that the fact of the adoption must be shewn to be public and notorious, and that in this case there was no proof of any overt act or of notoriety. The Appellate Court accordingly ordered that letters of administration should issue to respondents.

De Gruyther, K.C., and Eddis, for the appellant, contended that the fact of the adoption was sufficiently established. The probabilities were strongly in favour of it, and it was contended that the overt act on the part of the adopter and the notoriety of the adoption were also proved. Reference was made to Ma Me Gale v. Ma Sa Yi (( 1904) L. R. 32 Ind. Ap. 72, 75.); Ma Gun v. Ma Gun (( 1874) 1 Chantoons L. C. on Buddhist Law, 147.); Ma Bwin v. Ma Yin (( 1879) Ibid. 151.); Mating Aing v. Ma Kin (( 1893) Ibid. 157, 161.); Ma Mein Gale v. Ma Kin (( 1893) Ibid. 168, 170, 172.); Ma Gyan v. Maung Kywin (( 1895) Ibid. 393.); Mali Thine v. Bah Pe (( 1897) 2 Ibid. 53.); Ma Sa Yi v. Ma Me Gale (( 1901) 2 Ibid. 181 ; reversed in ( 1904) L. R. 32 Ind. Ap. 72.); and Ma Tax Shwe v. Kan Gezi (( 1899) 2 Upper Burma Rep. 142.), and Chantoons Principles of Buddhist Law, pp. 83,

84.

The respondents did not appear.

The judgm