WYAVASTHA-DARPANA. ill 8 611. The adopted son of a Shadra inherits in equal shares with the legitimately vavutha. begotten son during the life-time of the adopter, but gets half of that son's share after the adopter's death, The equal partition of the son of the wife, the son given, and the rest, with the real legiti- Authority. mate son, whilst the father lives, and their succession to the inoiety of the share of such son, where the father may be dead at the time of partition, follow a sortiori.-D. Ch. Sect. W. §§0. The above ryaraathá is, however, applicable to the lower classes of whildras of this country: in: Remark. asmuch as here the inheritance of the good or high caste thudras, whose conduct in other respects is like that of the twice-born men, is also customarily regulated like that of the regenerate classes. See ante, pp. 1030, 1032. 612. The exclusively given sons and Dryámushyāytnas adopted by persons - * - - - ra - - - - * a . . blind, lane, or otherwise disqualfied from inheriting, and so forth, have no right to the estate of their adoptive grandfather's estate, but to maintenance only”. As sons, blind, lame, and so forth", do not inherit, and since it is ordained, that their legiti- Authority. mate son, and son of the wife only, participate in the estate of the paternal grandfather, a son given or other description of son, adopted by such persons, has no right to the estate of * paternal grandfather, but to maintenance only. For, alimony being provided for the wives of the persons blind and so forth, maintenance for their adopted sonsis inferred a sirtiuri. So also, having previously declared sons blind, lame, and so forth, not to be heirs (an author) adds,-" Of these, the sous legitimate, and sons of the wife, who are free from defect, participate in a share: the childless wives of those (who are blind and so forth ) are to be supported,...is virtuous. Their daughters are to be maintained as long as unmarried.”—D. Ch. Sect. VI. § 1, 2.
- A doubt Inight be entertained, as to the validity of an adoption, by one not being in the order of e the ‘Grihi (the householder or married man, ) or by a blind, impotent, or other person, dirqualific] from inheriting. The more correct opinion, however, appears to be, that an adoption, by any of the purious described, would be valid; though it seems reasonable, that the affiliation of one orcluded sron inheri. tance, should confer no right of succession on the adopted, of which the adopter is debarred by law.— Sutherland's Synopsis, Head First, p. 148. -
- 4.
The individuals excluded from arc, “the impotent person, the outcast and his issue, one lame, a madman, an idiot, a blind man, a person afflicted with an incurable disease, and others similar disqualified,” (See Chapter VIII.)—The possibility of a doubt, as to the legality of an adoption, by persons, is suggested with reference to a passage in the Mitákshará, which declares, that the spécific mention of ‘the legitimate son and son of the wife' in a text of Jágoyavalkya, providing for the inheritance of such sons of disqualified persons, is intended to forbid the adoption, by them, of other ons. The author of the Dattaka-Candriká likewise, arguing from the same or a parallel text, that an adopted sin, is not ordained for disqualified persons, excludes such son of those persons from succeeding to the estate of the paternal grandfather. In the absence, however, of other authorities, those alluded to can hardly be admitted as sufficient to establish a general rule, vitiating in toto the adoption by one excluded from inheritance-In fact, the author of the Dattaka-Chandriká, without advancing such position, merely denies the right of one so adopted to inherit of his adoptive father; and perhaps no inore was intended by the antbof of the Mitákukará-Sutherland's Cynopsis, Note iv, p. 156.
