WYAVASTHA-DARPANA, 994 same manner as the invitation of the king; for, both terms are confirmatory of this, in the sense,... “they unite with ( badānanti”) and “know (Jánánti,” J as their own, the adopted person.-I). Mím. Sect. V. § 9. 菊 會 II. “He who means to adopt a son, must assemble his kinsmen,” &c.—This is intended to show that a son known by kinsmen to have been adopted,) shall take the inheritance, and perform the Sriddha and the like; and they shall not molest him. The notice given to the king is intended for the same purpose.—Coleb, Dig. vol. III, p. 241. III. No to the king and convocation of kinsmen are necessary for a seen (or secular purpose, namely, that the adopter's brothers and the rest may know the name and class (of the child, ) and so forta, aster thoroughly investigating (all circumstances.) For this reason the portose not being indispensalile, ) affiliation is in some instances valid, even without this nnrssen " if part í ef the cereintiny, )—Coleb, Dig, vol. III. 248. , , , , , , , , says “The olation to fire with holy words from the sedit is an one's not! defective, the adoption is neverthless valid, for no one admit to the priño, that!ained it an unessential part be defective.”—“In like man1;.-r, •% *l I th • •!)l;itio: 'o fit v he partly omitted in consequence of niahility ( to completo it, ) tlio ; pt Jn is symetimes gal in law, is marriage and the like are valid iii »iniilar eireum. stan r-,”-- it the declared intention be expressed in these words, “I give him to you as a son,' and is the areopto. . . it outson he thus expressed, ‘I take him as a son, he becomes a son : nothing clso is required "-- Since to one has declared that filiation is null, if the oblation to fire with holy words from the J , , , b, onlitted, the validity of adoption, by gift and acceptance only, without such an oblation, is fully proved isy reasoning.”—See. Coleb. Dig, vol. III, pp. 21 1–248, Mr. Colel to ke remarks -- As to oilation to fire, the ceremony is prescribed; but the fact of its coloration in y be pressition is the he no proof to the contrary.” Then he ridios upon the following dirtuin of Jagannu!/ —“The inadvertent omission of a ceremony would not invalidate the adoption.” Again. amongst his remarks accompanying his letter to Sir Thomas Strange, the learned gentleman observes that “the unintentional omission of Rome part of them by the adopter would hardly invalidate adoption, though the wilful omission of the whole by him might have that effect: since the performance of the ceremony of tonsure or other rights in the family of the adopter is indispensable to the completion of the adoption.”—Sce Str II. I, vol. 11. Pp. 106, 130 t Sir, Thomas Strange, on the authority of Manu, Jagannātha, Colebrooke, Sutherland, and Ellis, observes : “There must be gift and acceptance, manifested by Rome overt act. Beyond this, legally speaking, it does not appear that any thing is absolutely necessary. And even with regard to the sacrifice of fire, important as it may be seemed, in a spiritual point of view, it is so with regard to a Brähmann only; according to the constant distinction, in the texts and glosses, upon matters of ritual observance, between Brähnanas and other classes; it being łęertini k→
