WYAWASTHA-DARPANA. 85.8 The Dattaka-nimánuâ, Sect. II. § 45. The Dattaka-chandrikó, Sect. l, § 25.—Ante, pp. s24,826, 828, 830, & 832. It should be here remarked, that no law is found expressing that a son shall not be adopted by one who has not contracted a marriage.—Coleb. Dig. vol. III. p. 252. 497. A man who is not a householder (grihi J" has also a right to adopt a son. The Dattaka-mimán*â, Sect. II. § 45.---Ante, pp. 826—832. It should not be argued that one, who has no wife, being (consequently ) excluded from the order of a householder, cannot properly adopt a son, this being an art mentioned when treating of the order of a housekeeper or married than. There is no argument ( to support such an induction.) Accordingly it is recorded in the H/stratu that sysiva and others, who had contracted no marriages, nevertheless obtained sons, namely, Sukudera and others. He who happens to hav, no wife, (whether he had contracted no marriage, or his wife have died or he forsaken by him, , either has not completed the ceremonies which perfect twice born ) men, or beiongs to no order ; but it is contrary to common sense that, although the form of adopting a tot, givet have been observed, the adoption should be void.—Culeb. Dig. vol. I I I, pp. 252,25%. 498. The impotent and the rest,t who, though incapable of inheriting, are capable of adopting.:
- See the seetion treating of ruvrriage, ante, p, 708, notae.
? ו": + By the term “rest” are meant the outeast and his issue, a person born blind or deaf, one latne, a madman, an idiot, one dumb, a person afflicted with leprosy or such other incurable disease, ( Set the following chapter, entitled “ Exclusion from inheritance, ) Those of them, however, who are wrest ol reason, are of course incapable of adopting. ! The Duttaka-chandriká, which in this respect is of paramount authority in Bengal, admits (though indirectly ) the right of the impotent and the rest, who do not inherit, of adopting sons, but donjo's that the sons adopted by then have any right to inherit the estate of their paternal grandfather, except to inaintenance only.—See 1), Ch. Sect. IV, $ 1. Adoption by one, bring himself, through any of the operative causes, incapable of inferiting, seems to be of a qualified nature, not entitling the adopted to the full rights of his condition Str. H. L. vol. I. p. 65.
- A doubt might be entertained, as to the validity of an adoption, by one not being in the order of the grihi (the householder or married inan, ) or by a blind, impotent, or other person, disqualified from inheriting. The more correct opinion, however, appears to be. that an adoption by any of the persons described, would be valid : though it seems reasonable, that the affiliation, of the excluded from inheritance, should confer no right of succession on the adopted, of which the adopter is dellarred by law.—Sutherland's Synopsis, p. 148.
Mr. Sutherland's remarks, on the subject of adoption by the impotent and the rest, as contained in Notr IV appended to his Synopsis, are as follows: “ The expression 'apput/ra'-destitute of male issue. occurring in the texts of Manu, cited as authorities for adoption, is explained, as intending, one whose *on may have died, and one to whom no son may have been born–The first explanation obviously, and the second by implication, may be construed as solely referring to the grihi’ or married man.--Again, the Medhátithi declares, that the scriptural precept enjoining the production of a son, must positively in *ome way be fulfilled by a person of the description noticed. These, however, do not appear sufficient authority. V vavastha. authority. Vymva*!ha
