1. The point which arises in this case is one which appears to have come before the Courts now for the first time. It relates to the validity of an adoption of a daughter by a Brahmin to place that daughter in the same legal position that his own natural daughter would have held. The plaintiff claims by virtue of the adoption to be entitled to the estate of the person who adopted her and to exclude the defendants, who are that person's next of kin, from the inheritance. The Dattaka Mimansa, Section 7, and the Sanskara Kaustubha are quoted to us as authorities in favour of the legality of the adoption. We do not, however, consider that they establish the proposition for which they are cited. The adoption of a daughter appears opposed to the very purpose and history of adoption. 'Males only need sons to relieve them from the debt due to ancestors'--Colebrook's Digest, Bk. V. T. 273, Comm. The adoption of a daughter is not warranted by any Smriti; it is supported only by some Puranic instances. No instance, however, is cited to us in which the estate passed to the adopted daughter to the exclusion of other male relations. Jagannatha denies altogether that a daughter can be adopted. A male only, he says, can become adopted--Vyavahara Mayukha, Chap. IV, S.V. para. 1. We think that this latter authority is of great weight, and we follow it. We, therefore, confirm the decree with costs.