V YAVASTIHA.DARPANA. (, , () orothers, ) for male issue, the affiliation of a brother's son takes place. ‘By means of that.'— By him even, by whom the natural parent becomes the father of male issue, do all the brothers „lso become so. –l). Mím. Seet. II, § 43, 14. Sreemutty Joymony Dessve verwiis Sreemutty Siboosaondry Dossee. Ryan, C. J., in giving judgment, said. The Bill prays amongst other things that one adopted. It has been found upon the issue that there was a dilection to a lot. The defendant's counsel has oljected first that Colly Coomar is the only son of his father, ind secondly that the initiatory ceremonies, and particularly tonsure, ought to be performed in the adoptive father's house. On the first point, the adoption of an only son is no doubt hlun. able by Hindu law, but when done it is valid. We entertain therefore no doubt as to the first int, and think that ('lly Coomar may he adopted, l'arties having two modes of doing the same thing, the Court will not suppose that the party has adopted that one which is immoral and |lamable. The agreement between the adoptive and natural father may be for him to become Joy into is tol, or soil to both fathers. We think in this case that Colly Coomar may have room thus adopted, and if so he will have been adopted without blame. "pon the second point, as 1, the ceremony of tonsure having been performed in the house of the natural father, it is no bar to the adoption; for after performance, a sacrifice to fire, even amongst the three first classes, may be resorted to, and this will undo its effects. But in this case the parties are Shitdras, and there is no ceremony but marriage for them, (}rat,t aiiil Maikim, Js, conrnrrt l. March, 28th 1857, Fulton's Reports, p. 75. Law.--"In page 136, I have expressed myself as follows---' From what has been already said, I contlus. that tiro men. v. vull ntst, at any tiine, have dilaptrd thr same som.' In the year 1821, Sir £dmund Stanley, ('hief Ji-tire of Madras, applied to me to procure for him the opinions of Pundits. The case was as follows. There were two Hindoo brothers who had joined in an adoption of the same on, N.ither of the brothor. had male issue, but the elder one had a daughter. This daughter married the u who hal han s" vi jsted: Aud her father (After the adoption and snurriage of his danzhter to k u vite by whom he ilād a so. The adopted son was said by some to have hown, when taken in adoption, fifteen, by others he wa a d to have been, twenty years of ago. The controt, in the Supremi' ('urt at Madras, was between the airpool son and the son who had been be soften afterwards. I consulted the Supreme Court Punslits posonally, and received the following information. Two men, whether brothers or not, cannot adopt the shine boy as a son. In the absence of my son from Calcutta, Mr. s'ourtenay Smith, a Judge of the Sudder Deltanny Almelus, was so good as to obtain for ino, from the Pundits of that Corf, their answers to the following quotions, Question ist.....('an two isindoo brothers, A & B, adopt thi zaine person ( 4 ) as a son ?--Ahrwer. -They cannot, any more than two persons can marry the same girl.”-Cons. H. I. pp 17:3.-476, - The result of all this is, that two or more pirssos ( win ther brothers or not, ) cannot adol, absolutely one all the same son, be he the son of a brothor of any oth r person; but there is no prohibi. tiva ao to two or more lirothers alofting in the dryámushyágann forin, one and the sanie rin , ! souther brother. On the contrary such aloptio, sons to have beh allowed by law, a is manifest from the passage of the shattaka-Mimans; above quotel. Hence, although two absolois adopt a brother's son, yet they can adopt hits, in the dwyámushyāyana furia. A 'AS
- * * ! i «"í" ! ! ! ? ; , ." -
Vyavastha. N , , & 5.3%
