The Rashtrakutas and their Times c18.s2.t2.2

c18.s2.t2.2

Gautama, (111) Vasiṣṭha, (112) Viṣṇu (113) and Manu (114) lay down that the heirless property of the non-Brahmanas was to escheat to the state. The interpretation of the term ‘heirless’ seems to have differed with different times. It is true that the widow was not recognised as an heir for a long time as shown already; but the Dharmaśāstras, which deny her that right, concede it to other collaterals, like the brothers, cousins or uncles. A person who dies without a male issue but leaves behind him some collaterals cannot, therefore, be regarded as dying without an heir. It would, however, appear that some states in the ancient period regarded such persons as dying without heirs in order to claim their property for themselves. Some of the Jātaka stories disclose such a state of affairs, (115) and the 6th act of the S'ākuntala provides us with a most convincing case. There we find that the king stops the intended confiscation of the property of a dead merchant in order to see whether one of the widows, who was enceinte at the time of the tragedy, would give birth to a son. A similar case is mentioned in the Mohaparājaya of Yashaḥpāla who flourished in Gujarat in the 12th century. Kumārapāla is there grieved to learn that his subjects should be under the justifiable impression that their king always desired that rich persons should die without leaving behind any sons. (116) The king consequently renounces this right after his conversion, and the Kumārapālapratibodha claims that the magnanimity of permitting the weeping widow to keep her property was not shown in the past even by kings like Raghu and Nahusha. (117) The case in the Deccan, however, was different. The tax on persons dying without a son, which has been already referred to, proves that only a fraction of their property passed to the state as a kind of succession duty. Managoli Inscription, dated 1178 A.D., further makes it absolutely clear that the property of persons dying without a male issue did not escheat to the crown, as was the case in contemporary Gujarat. The inscription states:—