WYAVASTHA-I) AltpANA. ጸርህ Although the eunuch and the rest should not marry, they may adopt childreu such as suns given and the rest.--Colub. Dig. vol. III, p. 321. “But their sons, whether begotten in lawful wedlock, or procreated by a kinsman on th wife duly authorised, may take shares, provided they have no disability.”- “ Jáutywew/44a, · Ou this text commentators remark, that two (descriptions of) sons of lepers and the rest, namely, one legally begotten, and one produced by a wise duly authorised, hut uot other sons, are capable of inheriting. This is not satisfactory : for the issue of an appointed daughter, the son given, and the rest, are faultless; and the ollspring of the wife, and the son legally begott, n are not specially mentioned in the texts of líant and the rest. It should not be argued, that no ground oť preference exists whether the text of J/ nu shall be restricted as bearing the same import with the text of Jiua/art/k/a, or this be shall considered as exhibiting instances which elucidal, the meaning of the other.—“ Manu holds the first rank among legislators, because he has expressed in his code the (whole) sense of the "edit ; no code is approved which contradicts the sense of any iaw promulgated by Jlan u.” ( I rihayu/t. J-l'arifa'hanyir mara, or ('oleh I); vol. III. pp. :}:!:!, 328. 499. A man afflicted with leprosy or such other sinful disease is, however cquired to perform penance previous to his adopting a son, Since he would not be capable of performing the religious rites, necessary on the on , asion. grounds to pronounce the illegality of an adoption inade. generally by a man who ix:y n* \f I, av | ft.ir í• •: or still less one whose wise may have died. In fact, the passage in question of M, dhatīth, may in regarded as merely enjoining the nor obligatory to adopt a son. Justnut ha, in the firádabhangstonuru, or Pigest, translated by Mr. Culebrooke, expressly rojects as erroneous the doctrine, which would restrict adoption to a man in the order of yrih, The inity. duals excluded from inheritance are, “the impotent person, the outcast and his issue, one lano, a loats man, an idiot, a blind man, a person afflicted with an incurable disease, and others similarly disqualities The admissibility of a doubl, as to the legality of an alloption by such persons is suggested with refer new to a passage in the Mitákshurst, which declares, that, the specific mention of the legitimate son and ‘son of the wife' in a text of Jitynyaralkya, provitling for the inheritance of suel, sons of di: qualified persons, is intended to forbid the adoption, by them. of other sons. The author of the Inttuka. chandriká likewise arguing from the same or a parallel text, that an adopted son is not ordained for disquah. fied persons, excludes such son of those persons from suecording to the estate of the paternal era: i. father ( 1), Ch. Sect. vi.) In the absence, however, of other authoritis, those alluded to, eam hardly be admitted as sufficient to establish a general rule vitiating in toto the ad, ption hy nie, exeluit fr in inheritance. - In fact, the author of the Duttaka-chandrikā, without advancing such position, werely denies the right of one so adopted to inherit of his adoptive grandfather, and perhaps no loor, was intended by the author of the Milákshará.” Of the above reinark, only this passage : ‘that an adopted Ron is not ordained for disothod persons,'..--does not see ... to be accurate, as it differs from that of the Jour/aka chant/ri/of allu is to by the gentleman himself, which is as follows: “As sons, blind, lame, and so forth, do not inh, rit, and since it is ordained, that their legitimate son and son of the wife only, participate in the estate of the paterial grandfather, a son given, or other description of sons, adopted by such persons, have no right to the “state of the paternal grandfather, but maintenance only.” ( l). ('h. Seet. VI, § 1, 1 This can by no means be construed to neau that the author denied the adoption of the du//wka and of hor forus of sons by blind men and the rest, as not ordained, but that recognising “tell adoption by such persons he denied their heritable right in their adoptive grandfather's estate, and allowed them maintenance only.
- On this, the author of the Mitákshará thus comments: “--the specific mention of legitimate issue and offspring of the wife, is intended to forbid the adoption of other seurs.” (See I). ('h, svet. V ! Note 1. )—This exposition of the Mitákshará has been well refuted by the passage in the Pivisit bhangárnava already cited. More especially the »វ្ហា of the other descriptions of sons by jo, potent and the rest not being prohibited in the Duitaka-chandrikā, must be taken not to have been prohibited. at least in this country.
Authority \ A 1:1 " . . . .
