WYAWASTHA-DARPANA. 856 495. There being a practice amongst the devotees, who are not householders, of Vyavastha' buying boys and maintaining them as krita (purchased) sons or rather disciples, the latter inherit their property." SECTION IV, wilo CAN, AND WHO CANNOT, ADOTT A soN. 496. Not only a married man with or without a wife, being destitute of a ron, son's son, and sou's grandson (in the male line,) capable of performing the excquial rites, but also an unmarried man, can adopta sont
- Sir William Macnaghten says: “I have laid it down as a rule that, in the present age, adoption is allowable only in the Ditfitka, Duyimushāyāna, and Aritrimut forms ; but I liid, on reference to the Elements of Hindoo Law, that a question was agitated as to the admissibility of the Arita, or son hought. The point was much canvassed, and gave rise to a protracted controversy between two of the most “minent scholars of the day : and there is a case in the Sudder Đowanny Adawlut Reports, (vol. I, p. 28, ) in which the claimant was alleged to be of the Paunarbhuta class; and in which in all probability the claim would have been adjudged, had it been proved to be customary for sons of that description to succeud. Although, therefore, it may be asserted that, generally speaking, there are only three species of adoption allowable in the present age, yet the rule should be qualified, by admitting an exception in favor of itiny particular usage which may he proved to have had inniemurial existence Thus it appears that the (usirémis, and other deroffers who lead a life of celibacy, buy children to adopt thern in the form termed Writis, or son bough: ; and that the practice of appointing brothers to raise up male issue to the deceased, impotent, or even absent husbands, still prevails in Orissa. (Note to big vol. I I. p. 276. ) The son to produced is termed Kshetroit, or son of the wife; and doubtless these several sorts of subsidiary sons should be held entitled to the patrimony of their adopting fathers, in places where the low lor, would justify the affiliation. (See Note to S. D. A. R. vol. H. p. 175.)-Man, H. L. vol. 1. pp. 101, 102
Here it should remarked that the claimant in the above mentioned cause was alleged to be illegosi. mate, not pounarbhava, and there is much difference between these two. He that as it may, both of them. as well as any other description of sons, would be valid if an immemorial custom of that kind have prevailed. As to the mention of the fiositimis and other devotees buying boys, it is to be remarked that they indeed buy boys and maintain them as sons or rather disciples, but nevertheless they do not adopt them, according to the law, as sons bought. Such maintained sons become their hoirs merely according to vustom. Mr. Colebrooke's observation on this subject as contained the Elements of Hindu Law page 108, vol. II, ) appears, therefore, to be quite correct. It is as follows:– “On this side of India, adoption by purchase is obsolete, and considered to have been prohibited in the present sinful age of the world: the only practice analogous to it is the purchase of children by Gosaceus, Sumnsists, and other professed ascetics, for initiation into their order of devotion, the disciple hocooling the heir of the master This however is not adoption, but a practice grounded on other provisions of the Hnition, law, and on the peculiar customs of the inendicant tribes. t The necessity of the thing applies, whether a man be single, married, or a widower since to all, equally, his future state, according to his conception of it, is of the last importance. In general, it is in default of male issue that the right is exercised; issue here including a grand or great grand. son, (in the male line.)—Str. H. L. vol. i. pp. 65,66. for the affiliation of a son, being the obligatory necessity of providing for - - - - - * ** * * ' ' ' ' ' ' salvati
