vyAvASTHA-DARPANA. sze. presence of Balsis priests, pooroo, and others, it is the declaration of the منابع that, if the party adopting is conscious of what he is doing, the adoption is legal. It appears from the question that the adopter died a few hours after making the adoption; and although the burnt sacrifice' preseribed in cases of Dattaas adoption, was not observed, that does not invalidate the adoption, as the sacrifice is only essential to the conditions of legal adoption among Brahmias, Kshetriyan, and Voisiyas, to neither of which did the adopting party belong. The object of adopting a son is that he might offer the funeral cake to his adopting father, grandfather, and great grandfather. As, in the present instance, the son adopted has performed the funeral obsequies for his father, and will continue to do so, his adoption is clearly valid, and he is unquestionably entitled to the estate of his adopting father.” & The principal sudder ameen, observing that the pundit's Vyavasthā contained no reply to the guestion of the right of succession of the plaintiff to any portion of the estate of the deceased, a further question to him, desiring an opinion on that point. To which the p # replied , as there was an adopted son, the widow of the uncle of the deceased did not to any portion of the estate. The principal sudder ameen, with reference to the Vyavastiá, gave judgment in favor of the adopted son. The defendant appealed to the Zillah judge, who confirmed the deered of the principal sudder ameen. The defendant then applied to the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut for permission to file a special appeal, which was granted. The case was first laid before Mr. Hardinge, who put the following questions to the pundit of the Sudder Court. {} 1st. If one ask a person, who is dangerously ill and insensible, whether he will adopt a son, at the same time taking a child to him, and the sick man reply, merely by a single word, "& the affirmative, is such adoption legal P 2nd. Is adoption restricted to any particular age by the Shasters ? and if so, is the law respecting the particular age, applicable to all, or only to some of the Hindoo tribes 7 The pundit replied to the first question that an adoption made under the circumstances stated in the question was illegal, because the conditions requisite to the validity of an adoption could not be performed by a person in the state mentioned ; and without the performance of those conditions, the adoption could not be legal. Authority.—Wasishtia in the Dattaka-minánsá. “One about to adopt a son should invite his kinsmen and make (a) representation to the king, and offer a burnt sacrifice, and thus make the adoption.” 尊 To the 2nd question the pundit replied that the period fixed for adoption, with respect to the three superior tribes, Brahmins, Kshetriyas, and Voisyas, was prior to their investiture with the respective cords; and with respect to Shūdras, to their contracting marriage. Authorities—1. Dattaka-mănăntă. “The ceremony of tongure (Chūdālyā) and other rites of initiation being performed under his own family name, sons given may be considered as issue : else they are termed slaves.” . 2. Datiaka-minánsá. , “By the compound epithet ‘Coodádyá, rites commencing with that of investiture for persons of the superior tribes would be suggested, but for Shādras, marriage, and so forth, implied.” Mr. Hardinge, adverting to the replies of the pundit, was of opinion that the plaintiff had completely failed to establish that the adoption of Nubkant by Gowreekant was a legal transaction, and proposed to reverse the decrees of the lower courts, and dismiss the claim. of 8
