History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.49.3

v4.c63.t2.49.3

Mayūkha does *not* say that the son given away is dead to the family of birth or ceases to have any connection whatever with the members of the family of birth, but restricts the cessation of relation to the offering of piṇḍa and the taking of the estate after he is adopted. The D. M. quotes ¹³¹¹ the Sm. C. (II. 289) and holds that by the gift the adopted son ceases to have the same gotra as the giver. The D. C. (pp. 23-24) states ¹³¹² the same proposition, without naming the Sm. C. The learned Judges who had to decide cases of adoption, even if they knew Sanskrit, do not generally appear to have consulted authoritative works other than the few that had been translated and were quite unaware as to whether even the cessation of the piṇḍa and gotra and of the right to wealth when a son was given away was so universally accepted by the leading Dharmaśāstra works as they thought. The Sarasvatīvilāsa (p. 394) quotes a text of Viṣṇu ¹³¹³ that even the adopted son should perform the obsequial rites of the natural father and explains that Manu IX. 142 applies when the natural father has no issue at the time of his death. Rudraskanda on Khādira gṛ. III. 5. 16 says the same. Kamalākara, the author of the Nirṇayasindhu ¹³¹⁴ and a first cousin and contemporary of Nīlakaṇṭha expressly states that Manu IX. 142 only applies when the natural father has a son or sons (other than the one given away) and quotes Kātyāyana and Laugākṣi cited in the Pravaramañjarī (p. 146) in support.