WYAVASTHA-DARPANA, 878 R. The son adopted by the younger widow, with her husband's sanction, is entitled to the share of the elder widow, who infringed her husband's directions by omitting to make an adoption. The gift of the share which she received by participation with her rival wife is not legal, and the donee cannot take the property conveyed; because the adoption of a son is the only means in this case of preserving the libations of food and oblations of water at the funeral repast; aud when she, without doing such benefit to her deceased husband, inade the gist, she deserves to be ranked among those willows who are in ompetent to succession. Consequently the gift by her is null and void. Zillah Dinagepore, August 31st. 1813. Maen, H. L. vol. II. Chap. VIII. ('ase, XI, p. 217. The latter part of the above opinion, namely, “when she, without doing such benefit to her deceased husband, made a gift, she does not deserve to be ranked among those widows who are competent to succession,” does not appear to be consistent with the law; inasmuch as no crime which does not cause degradition can render a person incompetent to succession, legradation is caused ly one of the five troeious erimes or by small sins volmmittel over and over." But theart of oumitting to adopt a son, or in other words, of discontinuing the presentation of the ollations of food and libations of water, is neither one of those five atrociots clinics, nor a small sin: consequently r it can not render a woman inevillpotent to succession.-The opinion in question is not therefore warranted by law. 512 A wife even when an infant intly adopt a son under the authority of her husband. As in doing so she ou!y executes her husband's order, the husband being in effect the doer of that act. It has been decided that a wife, while at insant, cat adopt a son under her husband's authority; but the question, whether a husband can during his minority adopt or authorise to adopt a son, remains still undecided. “ Pandis Bharat ("hunder Shiromoni, the writer of commentaries on the //u?/d oil-womansū and Ilaitaka-chandrikst, says in his Synopsis to the shitsuku-minánsá, that “both inale and scual, infants may adopt sons,—infancy not being a bar to the performance of religious rites.” Baboo Prosumno Coomar Tagore, author of the Gaurs?it 1/i/úlass, is however of opinion that a minor is incompetent to adopt a son.--The opinion written by him on the subject is as follows:** The corresponding termis in Sanserit for 'major' and ' inimor' are ' pripfa- ryara/fir,' or one who has attained discretion, and apráplit-ry traffir, one who has not attained discretion. The word “nyarahár? is defined as follows by soul/utakuráchiriyu, a cominentator on (suusamit Sätra. There are five causes which lead to ‘rsurahár' or discretion, 1st. Knowledge of one's qualification for a proposed work. 2nd. Perception of possible advantage from it. 3rd. Reflection of great possible disadvantage from it. 4th. I), sire for the work. 5th. Knowledge of the means of effecting it. The Shiatras determine that a youth who has not attained sixteen years of age cannot possess discretion as above defined. The Mitáks/ará in the Chapter on Loans 6tate: that a child from birth to the age of eight is to be considered as yet in the womb, and till the age of sixteen he is to be termed a boy; after that age he arriver at the years of discretion and is recognised as a major. If he has no parents, he is then to be considered as no longer in a state of dependance ( so says Aiyoyant. ) -
- See the Chapter treating of Exclusion from Inheritance,
Vyavastha', Reason Remark,
