WYAWASTEIA-DARPANA, 864 Inasmuch as the object of adopting a son is the presentation of the oblations of food and hbations of water, and the prolonging of one's lineage. 502 The existence of a daughter's son and the rest is no bar to the adoption of a son, or no ground to invalidate such adoption, if made.” Singe the worl “son" in the texts, “ by a man destitute of u son, Ve.” ( ante, pp. 8;}11, 58:) to imprehends only the son, son's son, and son's grandson, in the male line, and no one else. 503. A man, having adopted a boy, and that boy being alive, free from any legal defect, cannot adopt another.t For the object of having a son being attained by the one already adopted, it is unnecessary to adopt another and unwarranted by the law to do so.
- It is required that the party adopting should he destitute of a son, son's son. and son's grandson Souhak, oited in Duff. Hum. / It has been doubted by the author of the ('onsiderations, (p. 150, ) whether a man having a grandson by a daughter cannot adopt a son, but there is no solid foundation on which such a doubt “an re-t. It must have originated in the indiscriminate use of the word “grandson” in the English translations, as applically to the daughier's son as well as to the son's son. Mr. Sutherland, in his Synopsis, page 212, insers, and justly, that if male issue exist who are disqualified by any legal impediment such as loss of easte ) from the performance of exeguial rites, the filiation of a sun may legally take place. In the Summary of Hindu law, p. 48, it is laid down as a rule, that the insanity of a begotten son would not justify adoption by the parent; but to this and other general positions laid down in that work I cau not altogether accede. Maen. H. L. vol. 1. pp. 66, 67.
- It is clear that a man, having adopted a boy, and that boy being alive, he cannot adopt another. It is written in the Duttak-nimansi. “A man destitute of a son (aput/ra) is one to whom no son has been horn, or whose son has died : for a text of Sounaku expresses: “ one to whom no son has been horn, or whose son has died, having fasted for a son, &c." And it has also been ruled that authority to a wife to adopt, in the event of disagreement between her and a son of the husband, then living, will not avail, though authority to adopt, in the event of that son's death, would be valid. Ibid. pp. 80 - 86.
Sir Thomas Strange says: “As there exists nothing to prevent two successive adoptions, the first having failed, whether effected by a man himself, or by his widow or widows after his death, duly authoriol, •o, even where the first subsists, a second may toke place, such having been the pleasure and will os thu hushand ; upon the principle of many sons being desirable, that some one of them mily travel to Gayt '; . . ፩ pilgrimage, considered to be particularly efficacious, in forwarding departed spirits beyond their destimed place of torture (vol. i. p. 66, ) The latter part of this observation, namely, “ so, even where the first subsists, a second may take place, such having been the pleasure and will of the husband,”-- appears to be objectionalile, in the firai place, one adopted son being suslicient for the purpose, there is no necessity of virting ມother lor the legitinately begotten son; secondly, the law has no where provided that during the existence of one son another may be adopted ; on the contrary it has always used the term 'substitute for a (legiti. mately begotten ) son in the singular number; thirdly, as soon as a man لم هارب الم son he is father of *le issue, and a man having male issue ( in the male line) is expressly prohibited by the law to adopt amother. (See ante, pp. 830, 832.) R AR to the principle of ‘many sons being desirable, that some one of them may travel ιo Goyά, *pon which such inference is drawn, it applies to soils begotten and not adopted,—see the cast of IRens * }} . Vy:wastha. Reason. V vavaath." t{ uson
