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

$\left.\begin{matrix} S. IV. 5. 9
M. p. 58 ll. 3-16 \end{matrix}\right]$ ADOPTION 111
of a son should be made from amongst the sapiṇḍas^1 or in the absence
of them ( sapiṇḍas ), one who is not a sapiṇḍa ( may be adopted ),
but ( one ) should not adopt ( a son ) from elsewhere ( i e. from
another caste ) Among kṣatriyas, ( one ) from their own caste or one
whose gotra is the same as that of the ( adopter's ) preceptor^2 ( should
be adopted ), among vaiśyas ( one ) from amongst those born in the
Vaiśya caste and among śūdras ( one ) from among the śūdra castes
( should be adopted ) ^3. In the case of all the varṇas ( the four castes )
from their respective castes only ( are adoptions to be made ) and not
from a different ( caste ) And a daughter's son and a sister's son are
given in adoption to a s'ūdla also One having an only son^4* should
never give in adoption his son. By one having several sons the giving
in adoption may assiduously be resorted to A brāhmaṇa ( should
adopt ) after bestowing on his priest a dakṣiṇā ( gift or fee ) accord-
ing to his ability, a king ( after bestowing ) even as much as half ( of the
yearly revenue ) of his kingdom,^5 a vaiśya three hundred coins, a

---

1. The Mit on Yāj I. 52 defines the meaning of sapinda in connection with the
   topic of marriage and on Yāj, I 53 sets out the limits of Sapiṇḍa relationship. The Mit·
   lays down the general proposition that wherever the word sapinda occurs, connection
   through particles of the same body directly or mediately has to be understood Sapinḍa rela-
   tionship plays the most prominent part in three topics, viz marriage, inheritance and succession
   and āśauca (impurity on birth and death) For a translation of the Mit passage on sapiṇḍa
   vide Lallubhai v Mankuvarbai 2 Bom 388 at p 423, Lallubhai v Cossibai 7 I. A 212
   at p. 232 = 5 Bom 110, 119 and Kesscrbai v Hunsraj 30 Bom 431 ( P C ) at p 443·
   The passage from ' Among brāhmaṇas &c ' to ' sister's son are given in adoption
   to a s'ūdra also ' is quoted in 17 All. 294 ( F B ) at p 376 and in 9 Mad 44 at p 51
   ( where it is said that the Dattaka-mīmāṁsā and Dattakacandrikā add one half verse viz
   brāhmaṇādi-traye nāsti bhāgineyaḥ sutaḥ kvacit'.
   2 According to the Ās'valāyanas'rautasūtra I 3 and the Mit ( on Yāj I 53 )
   kṣatriyas were supposed not to have special gotras of their own and it is laid down that
   their relations are regulated by the gotras of their purohita (family priest) It is however
   noteworthy that Ās'valayāna (S'r S VI 15 ) himself gives Mānava, Aila and Paurūravasa
   as the pravaras of kṣatriyas For the meaning of gotra vide Āpastamba Dh S II 5 11
   15 in S B E Vol II p 126 n and Kalgavda v Somappa 33 Bom 669, 682--683.
   3 In Tukaram v Babaji 1 Bom L R 144 an adoption by a woman who was a Tilari
   ( inferior Lingayat ) of a boy who was a Kulvadi or Mahratta was held to be valid
   4 At one time courts held that the adoption of an only son was entirely null
   and void, vide Lakshmappa v Ramava 12 Bom H C R 362, 376, Waman v Krishnaji
   14 Bom 249 ( F B ), Basawa v Lingangavda 19 Bom 428 (where all texts and authorities
   are elaborately discussed ), but now all High Courts hold that such an adoption is valid
   Vide Sri Balusu Gurulingaswami v Sri Balusu Ramalakshmamma L R 26 I A 113
   ( = 22 Mad 398 ), Radha Mohun v Hardai Bibi 21 All 460 ( P C ), Vyas Chimanlal v.
   Vyas Ramachandra 24 Bom 367 F B at p 375 ( = 2 Bom L R 163 )
   5 The D M explains ' half kingdom ' to mean half of the yearly revenue of the
   kingdom and ' sarvasva ' ( all wealth ) to mean the whole of a year's income This seems
   reasonable.
   *P. 111 ( text ).