116. If additional shares are thus deducted, one must allot equal shares (out of the residue to each); but if no deduction is made, the allotment of the shares among them shall be (made) in the following manner.
117. Let the eldest son take one share in excess, the (brother) born next after him one (share) and a half, the younger ones one share each; thus the law is settled.
118. But to the maiden (sisters) the brothers shall severally give (portions) out of their shares, each out of his share one-fourth part; those who refuse to give (it), will become outcasts.
' The best of ten animals/ thus Kull., Nar., Ragh., according to Gaut. XXVIII, 12, where they read da^ata^ pa^unam, instead of da^atam. Medh. gives the same explanation, but applies the rule also to clothes and ornaments. He adds, that 'others' explain the text in accordance with Vas. XVII, 43, 'And a tithe (of the cattle and horses).' Nand. nearly agrees with Medh.'s opinion, as he says that everything shall be divided into ten shares, and the eldest shall take one in excess. All the commentators agree that this additional share belongs to an eldest brother only, if he is endowed with particularly good qualities and the rest are inferior to him.
115. Ap. II, 13, 13. ' Their occupations,' i. e. ' reciting the Veda and so forth' (Kull., Ragh.). According to Nar., the phrase 'no additional share (consisting of the best animals) among ten ' indi- cates that none of the other additions, mentioned in verse 114, shall be given. Nand. omits this verse.
116. Gaut. XXVIII, 8.
117. Gaut. XXVIII, 9-10; Vas. XVII, 42. 'One share in excess,' i. e. 'two shares' (Medh., Kull., Nar., Ragh., Nand.). The latter four point out that this division is to be made when the eldest and the second brothers are more eminent than the rest.
118. Vi. XVIII, 35; Yagfi. II, 124. According to all the com- IX, 120. INHERITANCE. 349 119. Let him never divide (the value of) a single goat or sheep, or a (single beast) with un- cloven hoofs; it is prescribed (that) a single goat or sheep (remaining after an equal division, belongs) to the eldest alone.
120. If a younger brother begets a son on the wife of the elder, the division must then be made equally; thus the law is settled.
mentators the meaning is that, if a man leaves children by wives of different castes, the brothers are to provide for the dowry of the unmarried sisters of the same caste, i. e. a Brahmawa's sons by a Brahmawa wife for the daughters of the latter, the sons by a Kshatriya wife for the daughters of the latter, &c. This meaning is more clearly expressed by Medh.'s reading, svabhya^ svabhyas tu kanyabha^, ' But the brothers shall give (portions) to the maiden (sisters), each to those of his own (caste).' Kull. adds, that the duty of providing for sisters devolves in the first instance on brothers of the full blood, and in default of such on half-brothers.
As regards the expression ' a fourth share,' Medh. says that a brother shall receive three-fourths and the sister one-fourth, and that, if there are many sisters, they shall receive one- fourth of the share of a brother of equal caste. Kull. agrees with the first part of the explanation, but adds, ' Hence it must be understood that even if there are many brothers and sisters of the same caste, but born of different mothers, one-fourth part must be given to the sisters of the full blood ' (i. e. by their full brothers). Nar. says, ' They shall give each one-fourth part of their share, and take three parts; and the same division must be made if there are many daughters. But if there are many sons and one daughter, they must deduct from their several shares as much money as will be equal to a fourth part of one brother's share and give that.' Medh. censures those commentators who think that one-fourth share need not be actually given, but only as much as will suffice to defray the marriage expenses.
119. I.e. such an animal is not to be sold and the proceeds to be divided; nor shall its value be made good to the other brothers by giving them other objects (Medh.. Kull., Nar., Ragh.).
120. I.e. the Kshetra^a receives no preferential share, as his father would have done. Kull. infers from this verse that, though 121. The representative (the son begotten on the wife) is not invested with the right of the principal (the eldest brother to an additional share); the principal (became) a father on the procreation (of a son by his younger brother); hence one should give a share to the (son begotten on the wife of the elder brother) according to the rule (stated above).
122. If there be a doubt, how the division shall be made, in case the younger son is born of the elder wife and the elder son of the younger wife, 123. (Then the son) born of the first wife shall above, verse 104, brothers (i.e. sons of the deceased) only are named, grandsons inherit, also according to Manu, just like sons and with sons; see also below, verse 186.
111. Thus Kull.; Nand. agrees with respect to the first half- verse, but explains the second as follows, 'The father is the principal in the procreation of children; hence one must give a share to the (son begotten on the wife of the eldest) according to the law (declared above).' Nar. also differs, ' The subsidiary (son) does not by law take the place of the principal, (and cannot for that reason receive an additional share); his father (the eldest was) the principal for continuing the line; hence one should give a share (to his subsidiary son) in accordance with the law/ Ragh. goes off still further, ' The principal (the eldest) must according to the law not be treated like the substitute (i. e. not be deprived of an additional share, yet as) the father is the chief person in the procreation (of children), one should give a share to the (son of the wife) in accord- ance with the law (applicable to his real father)/ Medh. has a similar explanation, '(To say) that the substitute (i.e. the Kshetra^a) is equal to the principal is not proper according to the sacred law; the father (i. e. the begetter) is the principal in the procreation of children, hence one must give a share (to the Kshetrag-a) in accord- ance (with the law declared above)/ 122. The point to be decided is, if the seniority is to be accord- ing to the mothers or according to actual birth. The eldest wife is, of course, the one married first.
123. Gaut XXVIII, 14.
IX, 126. INHERITANCE. 351 take as his additional share one (most excellent) bull; the next best bulls (shall belong) to those (who are) inferior on account of their mothers.
124. But the eldest (son, being) born of the eldest wife, shall receive fifteen cows and a bull, the other sons may then take shares according to (the seniority of) their mothers; that is a settled rule.
125. Between sons born of wives equal (in caste) (and) without (any other) distinction no seniority in right of the mother exists; seniority is declared (to be) according to birth.
126. And with respect to the Subrahma^ya. (texts) also it is recorded that the invocation (of Indra shall be made) by the first-born, of twins likewise, (con- ceived at one time) in the wombs (of their mothers) the seniority is declared (to depend) on (actual) birth.
124. Gaut. XXVIII, 15. ' May take shares,' i. e. 'may divide the (other) cows' (Medh., KulL), or 'shall each receive one bull, a very good one, a less excellent one, in due order, according to the seniority of their mothers' (Nar.).
125. As this verse and the following one contradict the rules given in verses 123-124, the commentators try to reconcile them in various ways. Medh. thinks that verses 123-124 are an artha- vada and have no legal force, and Ragh. inclines to the same opinion. Nar. and Nand. hold that the seniority according to the mother's marriage is of importance for the law of inheritance (verses 123-124), but that it has no value with respect to salutations and the like or to prerogatives at sacrifices (verses 125-126). Kull., finally relying on Gov.'s opinion, thinks that the rules leave an option, and that their application depends on the existence of good qualities and the want of such. It is, however, probable that, according to the custom of Hindu writers, the two conflicting opinions are placed side by side, and that it is intended that the learned should find their way out of the difficulty as they can.
126. The Subrahmaflya texts contain an invitation, addressed to Indra, to partake of the Soma; see Aitareya-brahmawa VI, 3. Nand. reads yamayoj- ^aikagarbhe 'pi.
127. He who has no son may make his daughter in the following manner an appointed daughter (putrika, saying to her husband), 'The (male) child, born of her, shall perform my funeral rites.'
128. According to this rule Daksha, himself, lord of created beings, formerly made (all his female offspring) appointed daughters in order to multiply his race.
129. He gave ten to Dharma, thirteen to Kas- yapa, twenty-seven to King Soma, honouring (them) with an affectionate heart.
130. A son is even (as) oneself, (such) a daughter is equal to a son; how can another (heir) take the estate, while such (an appointed daughter who is even) oneself, lives?
131. But whatever may be the separate property of the mother, that is the share of the unmarried daughter alone; and the son of an (appointed) daughter shall take the whole estate of (his ma- ternal grandfather) who leaves no son.
127. Gaut. XXVIII, 18; Vas. XVII, 17; Baudh. II, 3, 15; Vi.
1 28. The story of Daksha's fifty, sixty, or twenty-four daughters occurs in the Mahabharata and the Pura«as. The twenty-seven given to King Soma, the moon, are the lunar mansions or Nakshatras.
130. 'A son is even (as) oneself;' see the verse quoted, Baudh. II, 3, 14. The commentators state that the word duhit&, ' daughter,' means here putrika, * an appointed daughter.' Medh. adds that in accordance with this verse, an appointed daughter who has no son, when her father dies, does not inherit his property (?).
131. Gaut. XXVIII, 24; Vi.XVII,2i. The correctness of the trans- lation of the term yautakam by ■ separate property' (Medh.), follows from its being used below, verse 214, to denote the separate hoard made by an elder brother. According to Medh., Kull., and Nar. all stridhana is meant; according to 'others' mentioned by Medh.,Nand., and Ragh., the so-called saudayikam or property derived from the IX, 135- INHERITANCE. 353 132. The son of an (appointed) daughter, indeed, shall (also) take the estate of his (own) father, who leaves no (other) son; he shall (then) present two funeral cakes to his own father and to his maternal grandfather.
133. Between a son's son and the son of an (appointed) daughter there is no difference, neither with respect to worldly matters nor to sacred duties; for their father and mother both sprang from the body of the same (man).
134. But if, after a daughter has been appointed, a son be born (to her father), the division (of the inheritance) must in that (case) be equal; for there is no right of primogeniture for a woman.
1 35. But if an appointed daughter by accident dies without (leaving) a son, the husband of the appointed daughter may, without hesitation, take that estate.
father's family. Kumari, ' an unmarried daughter' (Medh., Kull.), means according to Nar. ' a daughter who has no sons.' Dauhitra^, literally 'the son of a daughter,' means according to the com- mentators ' the son of an appointed daughter,' putrikaputra^. The first rule is, according to Kull., Nar., and Nand., a general maxim, which refers not merely to the case of a putrika. The second rule shows, according to Nand., that the appointed daughter herself does not inherit her father's estate, if she has a son.
132. Medh. mentions a var. leet, aputrasya hared yadi, 'If the son of an (appointed) daughter takes the entire estate of (his maternal grandfather), &c.,' which is also found in Gov.'s text, but considers it to be wrong.
133. Yagii. II, 128. Loke dharmata^, 'neither with respect to worldly affairs nor to sacred duties'(Kull.), means according toR&gh. and Nand. 'with respect to sacred duties, according to the law.'
135. 'That estate,' i.e. 'what the appointed daughter received from her father either during his lifetime or after his death' (Nar.). Kull. adds that the verse is intended to forbid the father's inheriting his pre-deceased daughter's property, on the plea that she was like a son (see verse 185). Nand. says that the paternal uncles &c. shall not take the putrika's estate.
136. Through that son whom (a daughter), either not appointed or appointed, may bear to (a hus- band) of equal (caste), his maternal grandfather (has) a son's son; he shall present the funeral cake and take the estate.
137. Through a son he conquers the worlds, through a son's son he obtains immortality, but through his son's grandson he gains the world of the sun.
138. Because a son delivers (trayate) his father from the hell called Put, he was therefore called put-tra (a deliverer from Put) by the Self-existent (Svayambhu) himself.
139. Between a son's son and the son of a daughter there exists in this world no difference; for even the son of a daughter saves him (who has no sons) in the next world, like the son's son.
136. Kull. explains akrz'ta va knta vapi by '(a daughter) either appointed not (explicitly but by a mental reservation), or appointed (explicitly, at the betrothal, according to verse 127)/ He adds that Gov. takes the word akrz'ta in its usual sense, and asserts that the verse allows the son of a daughter not appointed to inherit his maternal grandfather's estate. The latter opinion is held also by Nar., who remarks that the son of a daughter not appointed inherits on failure of a wife or of daughters of his grandfather; and by Nand. Ragh. and Medh. side with Kull., whose explanation is supported by Gaut. XXVIII, 20, and still more by Vi. XV, 6. The latter passage clearly prescribes that the daughter of a man who has no sons is in every case ' an appointed daughter.'
137. Vas. XVII, 5; Vi. XV, 46; Y^w. I, 78. 'The worlds,' i. e. * the ten, called vi^oka (free from sorrow), the first of which is svarga' (Medh.). ' Immortality, i. e. a very long residence in those same (worlds),' (Medh., Kull.) ' The sun,' i. e. ' Hirawyagarbha ' (Nar.). The verse shows that sons and grandsons inherit, though a wife and the rest may be living (Kull.).
139. Vi. XV, 47. According to Medh. and Kull., dauhitra^, ' the IX, 142. INHERITANCE. 355 140. Let the son of an appointed daughter first present a funeral cake to his mother, the second to her father, the third to his father's father.
141. Of the man who has an adopted (Datrima) son possessing all good qualities, that same (son) shall take the inheritance, though brought from another family.
142. An adopted son shall never take the family (name) and the estate of his natural father; the funeral cake follows the family (name) and the estate, the funeral offerings of him who gives (his son in adoption) cease (as far as that son is con- cerned).
son of a daughter,' means here also 'the son of an appointed daughter.' Nand. reads putravat, Mike a son;' Gov. purva^an, '(and) the ancestors.'
140. Baudh. II, 3, 16. Medh. mentions a var. lect., pitus tasya, ' the second to his father,' which he, however, justly considers to be bad.
141. Vas. XV, 9-10; Baudh. Parmsh/a 16. Medh., Kull, and Ragh. refer this rule to the case where a man has a legitimate son and an adopted son, and think that in such a case the latter, being eminently virtuous, shall receive, like a Kshetra^a (see verse 146), a fifth or sixth part of the estate. Medh. remarks that some think he is to have half, but that their opinion is improper, and finally that Upadhyaya, i.e. his teacher, allots to the adopted son less than to the Kshetra^a. Kull. and Ragh. state that Gov. took the verse to mean that an eminently virtuous adopted son shall inherit on failure of a legitimate son and of the son of the wife, but that this explanation is inadmissible on account of verse 165. Nevertheless Ragh. repro- duces Gov.'s opinion. Nar. says, ' It has been declared that an adopted son receives a share like the chief son, when he is emi- nently virtuous.' Nand. reads at the end of the second line, sam- prapto 'sya na putraka^, ' shall take the inheritance, (provided) the (adoptive father) has no son.'
142. Medh. mentions another 'improper' explanation, according to which haret, ' shall take,' is to mean harayet, ' shall allow to be taken,' and the purport of the verse is that ' he is to benefit both (fathers) like a Dvyamushyayawa.'
143. The son of a wife, not appointed (to have issue by another), and he whom (an appointed female, already) the mother of a son, bears to her brother-in-law, are both unworthy of a share, (one being) the son of an adulterer and (the other) pro- duced through (mere) lust.
144. Even the male (child) of a female (duly) appointed, not begotten according to the rule (given above), is unworthy of the paternal estate; for he was procreated by an outcast.
145. A son (legally) begotten on such an ap- pointed female shall inherit like a legitimate son of the body; for that seed and the produce belong, according to the law, to the owner of the soil.
146. He who takes care of his deceased brother's estate and of his widow, shall, after raising up a son for his brother, give that property even to that (son).
147. If a woman (duly) appointed bears a son to her brother-in-law or to another (Sapi^a), that (son, if he is) begotten through desire, they declare (to be) incapable of inheriting and to be produced in vain.
148. The rules (given above) must be understood (to apply) to a distribution among sons of women of the same (caste); hear (now the law) concerning 144. 'The rule (given above),' i.e. that given above, verse 60. Nand. omits this verse.
145. Medh. and Kull. state that the object of this verse is to teach that a Kshetra^a, if endowed with good qualities, may even re- ceive (against verse 130) the additional share of an eldest son, because it is said that he inherits ' like a legitimate son.' Nar. says, ' (the expression) like a legitimate son (is used) in order to establish (the title to) an equal share.' Nand. omits this verse.
146. 'This rule refers to the case where the two brothers are divided, while verse 120 refers to those who live in union' (Medh., Kull., Ragh.). Nand. places this verse after 147.
IX, 152. INHERITANCE. 357 those begotten by one man on many wives of different (castes).
149. If there be four wives of a Brahma^a in the direct order of the castes, the rule for the division (of the estate) among the sons born of them is as follows: 1 50. The (slave) who tills (the field), the bull kept for impregnating cows, the vehicle, the ornaments, and the house shall be given as an additional por- tion to the Brahma/za (son), and one most excellent share.
151. Let the son of the Brahma^i (wife) take three shares of the (remainder of the) estate, the son of the Kshatriya two, the son of the Vai^ya a share and a half, and the son of the \5udra may take one share.
152. Or let him who knows the law make, ten shares of the whole estate, and justly distribute them according to the following rule: 149-156. Gaut XXVIII, 35-39; Vas. XVII, 48-50; Baudh. II, 3, 10; Vi. XVIII, 1-33, 38-40; Ya^i. II, 125.
150. 'The ornaments/ i. e. ' the ring which the father used to wear, and the like' (Medh., Kull.). ' The house,' i. e. 'the principal mansion' (Medh., Kull., Ragh.). 'Ek&msa.s fa pradhanata^, ' one most excellent share' (Medh., Kull.), means according to Nar., with whom Nand. agrees, ' and one share consisting of the chief, i. e. best property ' (pradhanato mukhyadhanad utkrzsh/ad ity artha^), and according to Ragh. ' and one share, because he is the chief person.' According to Nar. this 'one share' must be equal in value to one of the three shares mentioned in the next verse.
151. Medh. and Kull. remark that the rule holds good also if there are more sons than one in each class.
152. According to Nar. this rule refers to the case when each of the wives has several sons, while the preceding one is applicable when each wife has one son only. Ragh. thinks that the first rule shall be followed when the son of the Brahma^r possesses good qualities, the second when he is destitute of them.
153. The Brahma/za (son) shall take four shares, the son of the Kshatriya (wife) three, the son of the VaLsya. shall have two parts, the son of the.SMra may take one share.
154. Whether (a Brahma/za) have sons or have no sons (by wives of the twice-born castes), the (heir) must, according to the law, give to the son of a.5udra (wife) no more than a tenth (part of his estate).
155. The son of a Brahma^a, a Kshatriya, and a Vaisya by a.Sudra (wife) receives no share of the inheritance; whatever his father may give to him, that shall be his property.
156. All the sons of twice-born men, born of wives of the same caste, shall equally divide the estate, after the others have given to the eldest an additional share.
157. For a ^udra is ordained a wife of his own caste only (and) no other; those born of her shall have equal shares, even if there be a hundred sons.
153. Medh. points out that according to other Smrz'tis the Brah- ma«a son alone receives land, given to his father, and that the -Sudra son receives no share in land, if there is other property.
154. Hence on failure of other sons the other heirs, the Sapira</as (Medh.), or the widow and the rest (Nar.), shall take the rest of the estate. Nar. adds that he may obtain more than a tenth, if his father give it to him.
155. The son of a »Sudra wife receives no share of his father's estate in case the mother was not legally married (Medh. ' others/ Kull.), or in case he is destitute of good qualities (Kull., Ragh.). According to Medh. and Nar., na rikthabhak, ' receives no share of the inheritance/ means ' receives no (larger) share (than one-tenth, except if the father himself has given more to him).' But it seems more probable, that the verse is intended to inculcate the maxim that a son by a *Sudra wife cannot claim any fixed portion of the inheritance from his father who divides his estate.
156. Medh., Gov., and K. read va, 'or/ instead of ye (gsita/i), but this gives no good sense, as Medh. remarks.
IX, 162. INHERITANCE. 359 158. Among the twelve sons of men whom Manu, sprung from the Self-existent (Svayambhu), enu- merates, six are kinsmen and heirs, and six not heirs, (but) kinsmen.
159. The legitimate son of the body, the son begotten on a wife, the son adopted, the son made, the son secretly born, and the son cast off, (are) the six heirs and kinsmen.
160. The son of an unmarried damsel, the son received with the wife, the son bought, the son begotten on a re-married woman, the son self-given, and the son of a 6udra female, (are) the six (who are) not heirs, (but) kinsmen.
161. Whatever result a man obtains who (tries to) cross a (sheet of) water in an unsafe boat, even that result obtains he who (tries to) pass the gloom (of the next world) with (the help of) bad (substitutes for a real) son.
162. If the two heirs of one man be a legitimate 158-159. Gaut. XXVIII, 31-33; Vas. XVII, 25, 38; Baudh.
158. I. e. the first six inherit the family estate and offer the funeral oblations, the last six do not inherit, but offer libations of water and so forth as remoter kinsmen (Kull., Nar., Ragh., Nand. * some '). Medh., Nar., and Nand. take adayadabandhavsU to mean 'not heirs nor kinsmen/ But Kull. rightly objects that the parallel passage of Baudh. proves this explanation to be wrong. Nar. finally interprets bandhudayada^, ' heirs and kinsmen/ as ' heirs to the kinsmen,' i.e. 'inheritors of the estate of kinsmen, such as paternal uncles, on failure of sons, wives, and so forth.' Nar. and Nand., as well as Medh. in his commentary on verse 166, add that the son of an appointed daughter is not mentioned, because he has been declared above to be equal to a legitimate son.
161. Medh. mentions another explanation of the expression kuputrai^, ' by bad (substitutes for a real) son,' according to which ' sons of a wife or widow not duly appointed' are meant.
162. According to Medh. and Gov. (quoted by Kull. and Ragh.), son of his body and a son begotten on his wife, each (of the two sons), to the exclusion of the other, shall take the estate of his (natural) father, 163. The legitimate son of the body alone (shall be) the owner of the paternal estate; but, in order to avoid harshness, let him allow a maintenance to the rest.
164. But when the legitimate son of the body divides the paternal estate, he shall give one-sixth or one-fifth part of his fathers property to the son begotten on the wife.
the rule refers to the case where a legitimate son and the son of a wife not appointed both claim the inheritance. But ' others,' quoted by Medh., Kull., and Ragh., think that it applies to the case where a wife first was appointed by her husband to procreate a son with his brother, and afterwards a legitimate son was born. The difficulty which under this explanation arises with respect to verse 164, is removed by assuming that the latter applies to the case where the natural father of the Kshetra^a has likewise sons, while verse 162 presupposes that he has none. Nar. and Nand. say that the case which the rule contemplates, is that two brothers were undivided, and when the one died, the other, who himself had sons, begat with the widow a Kshetra^a son. On the death of the second brother, the Kshetra^a is entitled to receive only the share of the husband of his mother, not to claim a portion of the estate of his natural father. Under this supposition the translation would be, ' If a legitimate son (of one brother) and the son of the wife (of another) have a claim to one (undivided) estate, each shall receive the share of his father.'
163-165. Vi. XV, 28-30; Yagii. II, 132.
163. This rule refers to the case where one man leaves several substitutes for sons and a legitimate son (Medh., Kull., Nar., Ragh.). 'To the rest,' i.e. 'to all except the son begotten on the wife' (which latter is exempted by verses 164-165; Medh., Kull., Ragh., Nand.). ' He who does not maintain them, commits sin' (Medh., Kull.); but not, if they have other means of subsistence (Nand.).
164. This rule refers to the case where a Kshetra^a was begotten before the legitimate son, and received no property from his natural father (Rdgh.); see also Kull/s notes on verses 1 62-163. According 165. The legitimate son and the son of the wife (thus) share the father's estate; but the other ten become members of the family, and inherit according to their order (each later named on failure of those named earlier).
166. Him whom a man begets on his own wedded wife, let him know to be a legitimate son of the body (Aurasa), the first in rank.
167. He who was begotten according to the pecu- liar law (of the Niyoga) on the appointed wife of a dead man, of a eunuch, or of one diseased, is called a son begotten on a wife (Kshetra^a).
168. That (boy) equal (by caste) whom his mother or his father affectionately give, (confirming the gift) to Nar. it refers, however, to the case where a man died, leaving several widows, and one was appointed to bear a son by her brother- in-law, while another afterwards proved to be pregnant and bore a legitimate son. 'The Kshetra^a receives one-fifth, if he is endowed with good qualities, else one-sixth' (Medh., Kull., Nar., Ragh., Nand.).
165. Vas. XVII, 39. Gotrarikthamabhagina^, 'become mem- bers of the family (i. e. succeed to the family rights and duties) and inherit' (Medh., Kull., Nand.), may also be translated, ' share the family estate,' as Nar. proposes. But his suggestion that the family estate is here mentioned in order to exclude them from their father's self-acquired property is doubtlessly wrong. Equally inadmissible seems another explanation, mentioned by Nar. and Nand., accord- ing to which a#z.?abhagina^, ' they share,' is to mean ' they obtain (such) a share (as will suffice for their maintenance).'