WYAVASTHA-DARPANA. 1 120 613. From the dictum, that they have no right to the estate of their adoptive vyavatha grandfather, it is inferred that a fortiori they have no right to the estate of the relations inferior to the grandfather, namely, those other than the parents, because their fathers (through whom they claim) had no right to the property of snch relations. 614. It follows, however, that the exclusively adopted sons, as well as Dityń. mushyāyana sons, are entitled to such adoptive fathers' property, if there be any. For they are no where prohibited to inherit their adoptive fathers, own property. IReason 615. A son adopted, notwithstanding the existonce of a legitimately begotten vyvastha, son, has no right to the property of the adopter. Since it is shown, that a son given participates with a real legitimate son, born subsequently Authority to his adoption, a son, adopted where a legitimate son exists, does not take a shure.—1), Ch. - Sect. VI. § 3. 4 616. A son adopted, without the performance of the religious rites, ordained for the Vyvasthaf purpose, is not entitled to inherit from such adopter, but to receive wealth sufficient for his imarriage. Accordingly, an author declares the non-succession to a share of one adopted without Authority. observance of rules;—" Him existing, a son being created, and a on given existing, one being adopted informally, that state is his only, who is justly muster of the father's wealth. Manu.-" He, who adopted a son without observing the rules ordained should make him the participator of the rights of marriage, not a sharer of the wealth.-D. Ch. Sect. 1 W. § 03 yvastha . 617. A son adopted from a different tribe or caste is fiot entitled to inherit from у the adopter. - Because it is prohibited in the present (Kali) age to adopt son from a different castc.—See Reason ante, p, 982. a' It is declared by an author, in the following text, that a son given likewise, who is of a different class, does not inherit—“If one of a different class, should, however, in any instance, have been adopted, as a son, he should not make him the participator of a share.—This is the doctrine of Shounaka.”—Ibid. § 4. Authority. 108
