WYAVASTHit-DARPANA. o6 same, by one having two sons also. For, the speech of &fnians to Bhitisa, axpresses: “He who has only one son, is considered by me, as one destitute of male issue, oh! descendant of Kuro, “One, who has only one eye, is as one destitute of both : should his only eye be lost, he is absolutely blind.”—Ibid. § 7, 8, The author, apprehending an extinction of lineage, in case of the gift of a son, by one, even having two sons, says: “ by one having several sons, such gift is to be anxiously made.”—D, Ch. Seet. I. § 29, 30. - سBut 515 Though prohibited by the sages and Digest-writers, the gift of a son by one having two sons is seen in practice, and it is not declared invalid by the courts of justice.” “By a man having several sons.” Since the masculine gender is here used, the gift of a son, by a woman, is prohibited. Accordingly, Washishtha says: “Let not a woman either give or accept a son;"—and [her] independency is not ordained. With the husband's assent a woman also is competent. Accordingly, Washishtha adds: “unless with the assent of her husband.”—“Whom his mother, or his father, gives (dadyá)”; “his mother or father give (dadyátán:”) As, for what is contained in these passages, as intimating the equality of the father and mother, that is merely with reference to the assent of the husband.-D. Mím. Sect. IV. § 9-11. The husband, singly even and of his wife, is competent to give a son : for in £he two passages cited (in § 11) the father is mentioned singly, and unassociated with the mother, and there is this reason of Iłoudhāyana found : “From the predominance of the virile seed, sons are regarded even as not produced of the wom” In the Bhārata also, [a reason
- It has already been observed, that a man who has a son, son's son, or son's grandson, is not competent to adopt a son; and it would seem to follow, by analogy, that is a man has a son, and the son of an elder son deceased, he inay give the former away in adoption, because he cannot be considered as ‘the father of one son only ; the latter also bearing towards him the relation of a won to all intents and #. раїрова, and supplying the place of the elder one. In the Dattaka-minántá, there is a prohibition against the gift of a son, where there are only two, but the precept is merely dissuasive, and not peremptory. Macn, H. L. vol. I, p. 77.
In this case the dissuasive *醬 against giving one of two sons, would apply, but the adoption would mererthelewe bovalid. Ibíd. Ñdte. * In strictness, to enable a man to give a won to be adopted, it is not sufficient that he have more than one; he should have several; since is, having only two, he part with one, the death of the remaining one, -leaving him destitute, would be a ಟ್ಗಳ್ಳ not to be risked. It does not however appear, that this * ಮೂತ as a rule. If therefore he ೩v ೫೦, be ಖ೩! relinquish the younger. Sir, H. L. vol. Wyawusthá. Authority.”
