व्यवहारमयूख (नीलकण्ठ भट्ट - पश्चिमी भारत की हिन्दू न्याय-संहिता एवं व्यवहार कोष)

64 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S. IV 4 42-45-5.
[ M. p. 49 L. 30-p. 50 L.22

The same author (Vasiṣṭha Dh S 17 15) speaks of the last (second)
variety the putrikā (appointed daughter) herself is the third son (the
other two being aurasa and kṣetraja) In this (latter) case the
father s obsequies and the like are to be performed by the daughter herself
Kṣetraja is one who is begotten at the order (appointment) of the elders
on the wife of a sonless brother and the like by a sagotra (one belonging to
the same gotra agnate) such as a husband s brother and the like. Paun-
arbhava is one who is begotten on akṣatā (i e a woman who had no
sexual intercourse with the first husband) or on a kṣatā (i e a woman
who had sexual intercourse with the first husband) by a second husband
The secondary sons other than the dattaka are prohibited in the Kali age,
since among the matters prohibited in it (in Kaliyuga) we read 'the
acceptance as sons of those that are other than the dattaka and the
aurasa

Now (begins) the topic of the Dattaka (adopted son).
Now the procedure as to the dattaka Manu (9 168) says ¹
He is to be known as the son given, whom the father or the mother
affectionately gives (to another) as his son in (times of) distress con-
firming (the gift) with water the boy being of the same (varṇa with the
person adopting)
Madana says that from the use of the word वा (or) it follows that in
the absence of the mother the father alone may give, in the absence of the
father the mother alone (may give) but when both (parents) exist both should
give. From the mention of āpad (distress) it follows that (a son) should not be

1. The whole of the section on adoption is briefly reviewed in 24 Bom. 367 at pp.
   374-377 The theory of adoption involves 'the principle of a complete severance of the
   child adopted from the family in which he is born both in respect of the paternal and
   maternal line and his complete substitution into the adopter s family per Mitter J in
   6 Cal. 256 (F B.) which statement of the law was approved in L. R. 48 I A. at p. 68,
   25 Bom L. R. at p 817 and 40 Mad. 241 at p. 245 Whom the father &c. —Vide
   Shamsing v Shantabai 25 Bom 557 where it was held that a Hindu who has a son
   can after becoming a Mahomedan give his son in adoption and can authorise his
   brother (the boy's uncle) to perform the actual giving. Mother —In Fakirappa v
   Savitrewa 23 Bom. L. R. 482 (F B.) it was held following 24 Bom 89 and over-
   ruling 28 Bom 107 that a remarried Hindu widow cannot give in adoption a son by her
   first husband Gives—there must be actual giving and taking. Vide Dhyabhai v
   Champalal 1 Bom L. R 812 (where it was held that where the boy was absent and
   there was no actual giving and taking and only a deed was passed there was no
   [...]