________________
THE MIMĀMSĀ AND HINDU LAW
103
as mother and father (matapitarau), and not as father and mother. Another appeal to the Mimāṁsā doctrine is made in regard to Yājñavalkya's doctrine (II, 126) that a coparcener, who at the time of partition withholds part of the property, must give it up for division. The question arises whether the action is reprehensible or not, and is decided in the affirmative because in the Mimāmsā (VI, 3, 20) it is ruled that a man who substitutes one form of ineal for another, even if acting under a genuine misapprehension, stili does wrong, so that, even if the coparcener had some right to the property and regarded it as his own, his conduct is censurable. Jimūtavāhana, as often, differs in part from Vijñāneśvara, and extenuates the action. On a strict interpretation by Mimāmsā principles again, it is not impossible to argue that Jimūta vāhana does not allow the disposal by will by a father of inherited property without provision being made for the maintenance of the sons; the conflicting view of the Privy Council is clearly hard to reconcile with the principles of Mimämsä."
Adoption, like inheritance, affords a fruitful field for the application of Mīmāṁsā principles. The right of a Sūdra to adopt, which is denied in the Suddhiviveka, on the ground that adoption must be accompanied by Vedic Mantras and an oblation which he cannot as a Südra have performed, is vindicated on the ground of the occurrence of a certain offering for a Nişādasthapati (VI, 1, 51) in the Veda, although a Nisāda is normally as a Sūdra excluded from any Vedic rite. The Mantras can then be recited by an Aryan. A woman, again, can only adopt with the permission of her husband, as she cannot by herself perform Vedic rites and ceremonies (VI, 1,6). Again, a child when adopted cannot inherit his father's property or perform his Sraddha, according to Manu; this rule, though restricted to these two facts, must be understood to apply generally on the analogy of terms like antarvedi in the Mimāmsā (III, 7, 13, 14), which means not merely at the centre of the altar, but anywhere within it. By another maxim Nilakantha decides that
1 Tagore Law Lectures, 1905, pp. 405-11, oli Vyavuhāramayakha (ed. Bombay, 1880), pp. 40 ft.
