WYAWAS THA-DARPANA. ᎡᎺᏰᏎ ing to the modern lawyers, valid, though immoral;" it is, however, not so, according to the ancient lawyers. Indeed, none of the holy sages appears to have been of opinion that the adoption of an only son or eldest son, as an absolute dattaka, should ever take place: on the contrary, from the text, “An only son, let no one give or accept, for he is to continue the line of his ancestors,” as well as from the following passage, “nor, though a numerous progeny exist, should an eldest son be given, for he chiefly fulfils the office of a son, as is shown by the following text: "By the eldest son, as soon as born, a man becomes the father of male issue,” it is clear that gift and acceptance of an only or eldest son are strongly prohibited.*—The old doctrine must, therefore, be said to be in accordance with the intention of the holy legistators. HEAD SECOND. In reference to acceptance,— 567. If a boy be received, by the man himself, for whom he is to be adopted, in conjunction with his wife, or by him alone, in case of his being without a wife, such adoption is the most laudable one; next to it is the adoption by a woman under her husband's authority; the adoption made by her not under her husband's authority, but with the permission of any one else, is invalid.t “She may, having her husband's authority, not otherwise." The answer is according to the doctrino of the Bengal school, but the followers of the Mitsikshari, in the Benares and Mahārishtra rehools, admit the widow's power of adoption, without authority from her husband, if she have the sanction of his kindred.--Strang'* H. I. vol. II. p.68. - As the husbind's kindred may authorise the widow to make an adoption, (see note to Msitákuhará on inh, ch. I. Sect. 11, § 9: ) wherever the authority of the Vigyāneswara, Mayúkha, and works of the same school is followed, her son's Hauction would no doubt be sufficient, it is otherwise in Bengal, where no sanction but the husband's can avail. A written authority is doubtless not indispensable.— Colebrooke's lternarks.-See Str. H. I, vol. II. p. 72. The alopted must consent: but is, as usually happens, he is an infant at the time, he is bound by the act of those by whom he is so given.—Strange's H. L. vol. I. p. 76. A son is also given for the purpose of adoption; this being done as an act of duty to relieve the adopter's distress arising from the want of male issue, no penalty is incurred; the assent required is found in the want of opposition; for, it is a rule that not to sorbid is to assent.-Coleb. 1)ig, vol. li. p. 100. The filiation of a son given under the age of five years is legally valid; his then utterance of consent would be taught like the speech of a parrot or the like; there is no authority for allinitting, in judicial procclure, words spoken by an infant under the age fit for business: therefore, in ordaining that “both parents have power to give, to sell, or to desert a son," his assent is required for the gift or sale, if he be acquainted with affairs, or adult in law.—Coleb. Dig, vol. II. p. 109. • See ante, p. 038. Coleb. Dig. vol. III. pp. 242—272. t If it is contended, then, that she may adopt a son with the assent of the kinsmen even, it is wrong; for the term “husband" would become indefinite, and the purpose would not be attained. Now the purpose of the husband's sanction, is that the filiation, as son of the husband, may be complete even by means of an adoption made by the wife.-D. Mim. Sect. I. § 18. 79 Vy■wwtb،.
