WYAWASTHA-DARPANA. 96() {' ᎪᏚᎬᏚ The adoption of an eldest or only son is improper, but not invalid.” If a man have two heArig... !!! wives, and have by the first one son, and by the second several sons, the elder of those by the - - A. - * - A 52th younger wife may be given and received in adoption—Veerapermall Pillay v. Naraen Pillay, 5th } of August 1801, Morley's Bigest, vol. I, p. 16. ( ' ኳ ድር): The adoption of an only son is valid, but both the giver and receiver incur sin–Case of learing on the the Rajah of Tanjore. Morley's Digest, vol I, p. 16. Vyavanthús Nos, 5 1?, 521, & 522, Doe dem. Kora Shunko Takoor versus Beebee Munnee. This was an action of ejectment, brought by the nephew, by the sister's side, of a deceased Brahman, against the widow of the latter. The lessor claimed on two grounds: 1st, is heir by adoption ; and 2dly, as having been appointed Malik by the deceased in his life-time, The first ground was done away with, in the first instance, by the court taking the opinion of the Pundits, who declared that a Hindu or Brahman could not adopt his sister's son, as it imports incest,-24th of November 1815. East's Notes, Çase No. 20, SECTI()N W.—.{}s Dwy A'MU8IIY AYAN As. 534. When a son is given by the natural father and received by the adopter Vyayastha. w - 3. - r r & with this stipulation —“this is a son to us both,” he becomes a Duyámushyāyana ( son of two fathers.)t This must be understood, where there may be a stipulation to this effect, between the two- Authority, "Hus is a son to us both,”—and such only is called a Dryámushyāyana, having two fathers (a ) Jud belonging to two families (i)—D. Ch, Sect. II, § 34. (a) Having two fathers'—that is, being a son of both the natural father and the adopter ; sunce they are in common fathers of a Dryámushyāyana son, (i) “Belonging to two families'—This, however, is the case where the adopter is of a different family (gotra ; ) the above expression therefore is applicable to that Dryánushyāyana who is adopted by a man of a different family; as in that case alone he belongs to both families,—and because an adopted son received by a man of the same family, having no other family ‘o belong to, the expression in question is quite inapplicable to him. - Colob, Dig, Vol. III, p. 243,
- There is a particular species of adoption termed Dwyámushyāyana, where the adopted son still Continues a member of his own family and partakes of the estate both of his natural and his adopting father, and, so inheriting, is liable for the debts of each–Maca, H. L. vol. I, p. 71,
68
