History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s48.8

v1.c6.s48.8

On scores of points there is divergence between the views of Bhāruci and those of the Mit. Bhāruci differed from the Mit. as to the definition of *dāya* and *vibhāga*, he allowed *niyoga* to childless widows, while the Mit. condemned it in the case of all widows; Bhāruci, like Viśvarūpa, did not mention *sapratibandha* and *apratibandha dāya*; Bhāruci, like Viśvarūpa, held that a coparcener who concealed some joint property was not guilty of theft, while the Mit. held that he was. Vide J B B R A S for 1925 pp. 211-13 for more examples and details.