পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ দ্বিতীয় খণ্ড.pdf/৪৬৯

WYAVASTHA-DARPANA. 1 16 . SUCCESSION OF A DWYAʼMUSHYA^YANA 606. Thể son given, who is a Duyámushyáyana (son of two fathers”) if both his vyavatha adoptive and natural fathers have no other male issue, takes the whole estate of both –D. Ch. Sect. Vaš 33. 卷 * 607. One adopted, where legitimate issue (of the adopter) existed, does not participate in the estate of the adopter—Ibid. - 608. But a legitimate son, being born (to the natural father) subsequent to the adoption, the adopted son takes out of the natural father's estate; half of the share of a legitimate son. (If however such issue be subsequently born to the adopter, the adopted in question } takes half of the share which is prescribed by law for an adopted son, exclusively related to his adoptive fathers (where legitimate issue may be subsequently born to that person. )—I bi 909. The son and son's son of a Vitya-dityámushyāyana succeed also in the ᎦᎥᏓIIRü !lkāᏓlllkór . 610. The children of an Anitya-dutyámushyāyama, having no relation with the family of the adopters it is inferred, by analogy, as well as by equity, that they are not entitled to inherit from them. 释 • See ante, p. 95). f The portion im. Italics is oimitted in Mr. Sutherland's f See ante, pp. 1042, 10 14. Where, subsequent to an adoption legally made, a legitimate sell is born to the adopter, the adopted son, at a division of the hej್ಲಿ! with such son, receives a quarter share (but "ace „„re, p. i42.) aeeordin: to the Dattaka-Ghandrikã. •A distinction, however, obtain* in the eaw of the Daytimushyāyana. From an obscure part of that work it would appear to be the doctrine of its Author, that such son would only tako '! the share, to which the son, absolutely adopted, would be entitled, in participating with a legitimate son, subsequently born,--On the same principles, this author appears to provide that, where legitimate issue is subsequently, born to the natural father, the Luyāmushyityant Jnly takes, in the estate of such father, the half of the share of a legitimate wou.--Sutherland's Synopsis, Head Fifth, p. 154. Sir William Macnaghten says:-"With a legitimate won subsequently born, the Diryámushyāyana takes half a share of his alopting fathor's property,’” (vol. I, p. 71 ; ) and as authority for the name, he refers to the Dattaka-Chandriki, Seet. Vs §. 33, thal. i8, the Fyatasthâ, Noh. 603, 607, and 608, quoted herwinabove, on reference to which it appears that the above dictum of the learned gentleman is erroneous, and mot in confognity with the passage of , the Dattakā-Chandrikā cited;—inasmuch as it is clear from the passage in question that a legitimate won being subsequently born, the Duyámnshyāyana does not inherit half of the whole estate of the adopter, but is, in that case, entitled to half of the share which an adopted son exclusively related to the adopter would have been entitled to.-- The fallacy of the dictum mey^ also be evineed in amother way, namely. if in the above ea$e, the Dryámushyáyana is entitled to half of his adopting father's property (as held by the learned gentioman, ) then the remaining half necessarily becomes the portion of the legitimately begotten son, and thun the dictum in quéstion prove* to .be coutrary to the principle of tho law and ineunsiatent, with remon;— contrary to the principle of the law, becauae, thg rule is ( see ante. 葛 1042, ಹ್ಲಿ “where a legitimate son is born subsequunt to the adoption, the adopted on takes one third, and the legitimate! y begotten son is entitled to two thirds, inconsistent with reason, because, a legitimate son, subsequently born, having the right to perform all the religious rites beneficial to the late proprietor's soul, in justly and deservedly entitled to double the share (as ordained by the law ) of the adopted son. (See his own work, vos I. p. 70.) Thus the dictum that a Doyámushyāyana son is to have an equal share with a legitimately. begotten son, is contrary not only to the law and to reason, but also to the principle laid down by himself. § See ante, pp. 962—904, 墾 - 107