VYAVASTBA-DARPANA. 1096 in a case recently decided by the Court of Suddar Dewanny Adawlat." It is not quite evident wfly a daughter's adopted son should be excluded, from inheriting the estate of his adopting mother's father, while a son's adopted son's of succeeding collaterally has been acknowledged, inasmuso as the maternal grandfather enuinerated among the kindred by all the Hindu legislators; but the reason is, that the party adopted in the latter case becomes the son of a person whose lineage is distinct from that of the maternal grandfather.—Macn. H. L. vol. I. р. 78. - 3. $ The reason assigned by Sir William Macnaghten is not the only one, but there are inany , other reasons for an adopted son's not having legal claims to inherit from the adoptive mother's father; some of which are as follow :- ששי k 2. ‘By a man destitute of a son only, must a substitute for the same always bodopted : with some one resource, for the sake of the funeral cake, water, and solemn rites.” (Atri.)—“By a man destitute of a son.” J. From the masculine gender being here used, it follows that a woman is incompetent (to adopt.) Accordingly Fashishtha, ordains “let not a woman either give or receive a son in adoption, unless with the assent of her husband.-D. Mim, Sect. I, § 15. - “Nor let a woman accept a son (without the assent of her husband. )”—If a son be accepted by a wife without the assent of her husband, her property in that child is valid, but not his performance of filial duties: he can neither possess the heritage, nor offer the arádilha or the like ; for it is shown that the adoption of a son is the act of the man; in no coole of law is it found that adoption can be the act of the woman.—Coleb. Dig. Vol. I) i. p. 244. 4. It should not be argued, that one who has no wife, being consequently excluded from the order of the householder, cannot properly adopt a son, this being an act ingntioned when treating of the order of a housekeeper or married man. There is no argument to support such an induction. And it is recorded, that Pyāsa and others, who had contracted no marriages, nevertheless obtained sons, namely, Sukadena and others. He who happens to have no wise, (whether he have contracted no marriage, or his wife have died, or have been forsaken by him,) eithel hди not completed the ceremonies or belongs to no order; but it is contrary to common sense that, although the form of adopting a son given have been observed, the adoption should be void. Coleb. Dig. vol. III. pp. 252, 253. 8, 5. Males only need sons to relieve them from the debt due to ancestors.-Ibid. p. 253. 6. And it is recorded in the Maháhhārata and other works, that Jaratkäru, Ruchi, and other males, have taken wives for the sake of obtaining male issue, but it is no swhere said that woman has taken a husband for that purpose-–Ibid. p. 53.
- That is, Gunga Mya versus Kishen Kishore and others,-8. D. A, B. vol. III. p. 128 : soe ante, pp. 159, 181. 头
102
