VYAVASTHA-DARPANA, 908 on the death of Veneatadry, there is a certificate signed by 140 Brahmins, that the adoption of Ramanadha was invalid. But as this was an opinion produced by Jaganatha, then in possession of the estate, but little weight is due to it. On the other hand, in 1818, before the institution of the suit by Rananadha, the Northern Provincial Court took the opinion of their own Pundit and of the Pundits of the Centre and Southern Division of the courts, on these questions : “l. Is a person, having, conjointly with a wife, adopted a son, and thereafter being displeased with her, and marrying a second wife, authorised by Hindoo law, conjointly with her, the second wife, to adopt a son 7 “2. A person, adopting a son, having for any reason adopted a second son, is the former, or the latter, heir to the estate of the adopting father, or are both sons entitled to share the same * These Pundits all agree in holding that the second adoption is valid, and that both sons are equally entitled to inherit. These opinions, however, are by no means conclusive, and the appellants contend, that the native authorities, upon which they are founded, are strongly against the validity of a second adoption. 鞭 In the Digest of Hindoo Law, on Contraets and Successions, with a commentary by Jagannátia, translated by Mr. Colebrooke, the question is discussed and treated as one in which a difference of opinion prevailed. The most material passages of the Treatise are found in pages 386, 889, 395, 397. The author holds the better opinion to be, that an adoption is valid, although a previously adopted son, or even a natural born son, be already in existence ; the main foundation of that opinion being an ancient text, “that many sons are to be desired; in order that one may travel to Goya.” - Whatever, however, may be the effect of this practice, its authority is far outweighed by two other Hindoo works, expressly on the subject of adoption, the Jatlača-mămămsá and the Dattaka-chandriká. 奪 The first passage, sect. I, plac. 3, in the former of these works, is the citation of a text of an ancient sage, Atri, in these words, “By a man destitute of a son, only, must a substitute for the same always be adopted (for the sake of the funeral cake, water, and solemn rites.)” This, perhaps, standing alone, may be held to mean that upon such a one only was it incumbent to adopt a son. The commentary, however, excludes this construction, for it says, sect. I, plac. 6, “By a man destitute of a son only.” The incompetency of one having male issue is signified by the term only” in this pasdose.” The author then, after quoting a text from Menu, much to the same effect, with that eited from Atri, observes, that the instancos of adoption, by certnin illustriouh persons, of sons, although they already had male issue, must be considered as exceptional cases, and not as generally authorising the act. In the next paragraph [12] the author seems to concede, that a second son may be adopted, with the sanction of the existing issue.” The Dattaka-chandrikā (sect. I, plac. 3) cites the flame text from Atri and Menu, and puts the same construction on them, as the Dataka-mămăneč. We think that these treatises are more distinct than the work of Jagannāthat they are written on the particular subject of adoption ; they enjoy, as we understand, the highest reputation throughout India ; and their weight is strong against the second adoption,
- This doctrine is prevalent in the other schools, not in Bengal.
55
