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

110 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [S. IV 5. 8
[M. p.52 l.25-p. 53 l. 3
1 to be made to him 'give me your son.' The giver being capable of
making a gift (should give his son) with (after reciting) the five (ṛk
verses) ye yajñena (Ṛgveda X 62 1-5) and (the adopter)
having taken (the boy) with both his hands after repeating the mantra
'devasya tvā' (Vāj S 20 3 Kāṭhaka S I 24 &c) having inaudibly
repeated the verse (ṛk) 'aṅgād-aṅgāt &c 1 and smelt the top of
the boy's head having decked with clothes and the like the boy who
bears the appearance (or resemblance) of a son (of the receiver's body),
having brought him in the middle of the house to the accompaniment
of dancing singing instrumental music and benedictory words, having
cast into fire according to the śāstra offerings of boiled rice with the
ṛk yastvā hṛdā (Ṛg V 4 10) with the ṛk tubhyam agre
(Ṛg X 85 38) and (offered) five oblations of rice with each of the
ṛks beginning with somo dadat (Ṛg X 85 41) and having per-
formed the homa to (Agni) sviṣṭakṛt 2 he (the adoptive father)
should finish the rest (of the rites) Among Brāhmaṇas the adoption

1 The first half of it occurs in Śatapatha Br. 14 3. 4. 8 the whole occurs in the
Mānavagṛhya I. 18. 6, which adds that the father after returning from a journey and having
smelt the top of the son's head, should mutter it. It occurs in the Nirukta (III. 4) also. Vide
Bhagwan Singh v Bhagwan Singh 17 All 294 at p. 380 where Edge C. J prefers Buhler's
translation 'he should then adorn the child which (now) resembles a son of the receiver's
body' to Mandlik's translation (p 52) 'having with clothes and the like adorned the boy
bearing the reflection of a son' Vide p. 370 where Mandlik's translation of Saunaka's text
quoted in the Vyavahāramayūkha is cited.
2 Homa to Sviṣṭakṛt is the one offered to fire (Agni) called Sviṣṭakṛt at the
termination of a sacrificial act. It has been held that the dattahoma is not absolutely
necessary for the validity of an adoption even among brāhmaṇas if the adopted boy
belongs to the same gotra as the adoptive father. Vide Bal Gangadhar Tilak v
Shriniwas L. R. 42 I. A. p. 135 at p 150 (= 39 Bom. 441) Govindayyar v Dorasami 11
Mad. 5 (F B.) Sheolotan v Bhirgun 2 Patna L. J 481 Govindaprasad v Rindabai 49
Bom 515 (= 27 Bom. L. R. 365) In this last case the adoption of a boy of a different
gotra by a Kanoj Brāhmaṇa's widow without dattahoma was held invalid. Where the
actual giving and taking took place during the lifetime of the adoptive father the
dattahoma where necessary may be performed after his death by his widow or another person
(vide Venkata v Subhadra 7 Mad. 548, Mandavilli Seetaramamma v Antarvilli Suryanara-
yana 49 Mad. 969) In Sri Sri Chandramala v Sri Muktamala 6 Mad 20 it was held
that among Kṣatriyas in the Madras Presidency an adoption without dattahoma was
valid but in Ranganayakamma v Alwar Setti 18 Mad 214 at p 219 it was held that
dattahoma would be necessary for the validity of an adoption among Komatis (or vaiśyas).
In Mahashoya Shoshinath v Shrimati Krishna Soonduri L. R. 7 I A p. 250 the Privy
Council observed (p. 255-56) 'The mode of giving and taking a child in adoption
continues to stand on Hindu law and Hindu usage and it is perfectly clear that among the
twice-born classes there could be no such adoption by deed because certain religious
ceremonies, the dattahomam in particular are in their case requisite. This was an
obiter dictum since the point there was whether among Śūdras there could be a valid
adoption by mere deed without actual giving and taking. Still being the dictum of
the highest tribunal for India it is entitled to great respect.'
P 110 (text)