History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.499

v7.c93.499

²¹³² This text of Manu has been a subject of several conflicting judicial decisions, which are now of no use since there is now a law governing Hindu Adoptions viz. the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 78 of 1956, by section 12 proviso b of which the decisions in 40 Bom. 429 and in some later cases have been set aside. Those interested may read the present author's notes in his translation of the V. M. pp. 121-123 and the footnotes and his paper (Brief sketch of the Pūrvamīmāṁsā system' pp 37-38 (ABORI, vol VI pp 1-40) and also H. of Dh vol. III. pp. 690-697. In *Dattatreya V. Govind* I L.R 40 Bom. 429 (where a person, in whom property had already become vested as the sole surviving male in the family, was given in adoption into another family) it was held, relying on Manu IX 142, that on adoption that person lost all rights to the property of the natural family that had become vested in him before adoption. That decision holds that Manu laid down two propositions, viz (1) a man forfeits by adoption into another family the property that once belonged to the family and that became vested in him before adoption. (2) A person given in adoption into another family does not, after the adoption, take any property of the family to which he belonged but whose connection with the family ceased after adoption. These are two distinct propositions and to hold that Manu's text is capable of these two propositions is liable to the fault of Vākyabheda. The V M (p. 115) further relies on the construction of another vedic text 'He fixes half of the yūpa inside the vedi and half outside it.' This is interpreted by PMS III. 7. 13-14, Śabara and the Tantravārtika as merely indicating a certain region for the fixing of the yūpa and that the words are not to be taken literally, because in that case there would be Vākyabheda. The दुपटीका brings out the meaning clearly. 'समस्तस्य यूपस्यान्तर्बहिर्वा माने प्राप्ते-अर्धमन्तर्वेदि-इति नियम्यते । द्वितीयस्यार्धस्य पुनरप्य-नियमप्रसक्तौ-अर्धं बहिर्वेदि-इत्यपि विधातव्यम् । ततश्चानेकार्थत्वाद्वाक्यभेदो मिनोत्पारुषा-ताक्षुयङ्गेक्लेशश्च प्रसज्यते । अतश्चेदशमवधारणमर्धमन्तरवेद्येव न त्वर्धमेवान्तर्वेदीति । तथा सति चार्धान्तरमनियतत्वात् कदाचिदन्तरपि प्राप्नोतीति न बहिर्भावः सिद्ध्यतीति । ... तस्मादुभाग्यो विशिष्ट एको देशोऽभिधीयत इत्येवमवाक्यभेदः।'.