vyivastha DARPANA. 1646 by the son isgally botton, then what would be the wounce it then be may such; the son given would receive an excessive sum if he took a third part from each, Nor shall he take one share out of the collected wealth; so, though single'he would not wins fall third put, and the legstimate sons would have more (than their due allotments.) Neither is the second supposition right; for, were it so, he would take a quarter (instead of a third.) Thus the last , supposition must be admitted. It maybe illustrated in this manner; in the case of partition made by a father, according to the opinion of Jāmūstālasa and the rest, let two legally begotten take eight ouvarnas each out of thity six inherited from a paternal er, let the father take sixteen ouvarnas, and the son given four. The meaning of the text is, that an adopted son shall have a third part of the share appertaining to a son legally begotten.”—Caleb. Dig, vol. III. pр, 290, 201. 599. If s person die before his father leaving his wife authorised to adept, the son adopted by the widow is undoubtedly entitled to inherit the property of his adoptive father;-he would also be entitled from his adoptive grandfather, provided he was adopted with his knowledge and 8836dit -ുliു is also ೩೫೦nt On account of the maxim:—"The intention of another, not prohibited, is sanctioned.t The author of the Dallaka-Minántá holds that, in the case of the adopted son being possessed of good qualities, and the legitimately begotten son destitute of the same, they share equally;:This rule, however, is now quite inapplicable, adopted sons, possessed of good qualities such as are required by the law, being rare at the present (kali) age." ') • The foregoing ':: of ಳ್ಳ! is correct, as regards the extent of an adopted ion's share in the division with a legitimately “ཡཱ་ཡཱt་མ༑༑ son, who in Bengal takes two-thirds of the heritage, givin the 醬 son the remaining third-but wrong as regards the succession of an adopted son, thoug received after the birth of a legitimately begotten one, in much as the adoption, during the existence of a legitimately tten som, being invilid is void ab initio, (See ante, p. 882, 874, 904,) and {he O adopted has no title whatever to succeed to the property of his so tே adopter, Auto the tert on the ground of which that ཉྫ་དoe was advanced, it is applicable to sons legitimately begotten, and not to those adoptéd. Bee oste, p. 904. 象 + In the case of a Hinds of Bengal dying in his father's life time without issue, out leaving a oidow authorised to adopt a son, if such adoption be made ::::::::::::: of her husband's father, at any time before he shall have any other legal disposition of the or a aaa •bail kawe been born řo his in wedlock, no such subsequent ition or birth inviáske Wee claim of the son so to the inheritance—Mach. H. L. vol. I. pp. 70, 71. 聯 The latter part of the above observation of Macnaghton is not, accurate; because, if the birth of a daughter's son annot invalido the claim of a son's son subsequently born, nother alidate :::::::::: subsequently received, tly born, can it inv the t §• w*, p. seo. § 8•• D. Mim, $ect. V, § 43. M 8• ante, p. 167. Wyawawthá. Reason Remark.
