Sarkar, Kishori Lal: The Mimansa rules of interpretation as applied to Hindu law (Calcutta, 1909)

>

THE NINTH LECTURE. 427
girl, who is a Sapinda of his- adoptive father, because
he says that the prohibitory rule is merely a recital J *
of the prohibition of conjugal, connection between
persons related both by birth as well as offering of
oblations. It can not extend to the case of the
adopted son.1 .
Next I shall give you the two cases of the applica-
tion of Mimansa by the author of the Dattaka
CJiandrika.
(1) The author of the Datt&ka Cbandrika puts to
himself the question whether in th$ case of two co-
widows, if one of them adapt, whether the adopted
‘ Amiksha
child becomes tire son of the other as well, to those* mixim.
who deny this, the author answers by appealing to the
Amiksha maxim of the Mimansa, which has been amply
explained before. Tire object of it is to separate the
principal effect from the incidental. The author’s
argument seems t<j be this, that the adoption is really
to the husband, and, that the relationship of the
son with the wife of the adopted is merely incidental.
Therefore, in the case of two widows, it is immaterial
which of them adopts, the adopted son bears the same
relation to both \he widows ’
(2) The author,of the Dattaka Chandrika refers to ivapij ja]a
the Kapijjala Xyaya (partridge maxim) in connection Nyaya.
with the word Brahmanas in the plural number, which '
occurs in a portion of Saunaka’s *6ften quoted
passage. * ,
You will observe that the application of Mimansa

1 Dattaka Mimansa Sect. VI. para. 31.
> *