1. BOTH the impugned Orders must and do survive these appeals, though with a little alteration by way of addition as indicated in the Judgment of Ray. J., following hereinafter, I agree with the order proposed by Ray. J. But a few words on some of the questions Involved. I Under the law as it stood before the enactment of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, one could not adopt two persons simultaneously, as ruled by the Privy Council in Akhoy Chunderbagchi vs. Kala Pahar Haji (12 indian Appeals 198) and then in Surendra Keshub vs. Doorgasoonderi (19 indian Appeals 108) The decisions of the Privy Council were severely criticized as erroneous and as wrong exposition of law arrived at by "lawyers without Sanskrit", as there was too provision anywhere in any of the Smritis or the Nibanu has prohibiting such adoption, while some of the provisions of the Codes of Atri, Ushana. Brihaspati and Likhita could reasonably be interpreted to permit, or even entourage, plurarity of sons, whether aurasa (natural), dattaka (adopted), or otherwise. (See, among others. Sarkar-Sastris Tagore Law Lectures on the Hindu Law of Adoption. The present Act of 1956, in prescribing the condit