History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s70.7

v1.c6.s70.7

The Smṛticandrikā refers to Vijñāneśvara with great respect.⁸⁰⁷ Yet there are several interesting points on which the Smṛticandrikā differs from the Mitākṣarā. The Smṛticandrikā questions (vide note 638 above) the statement of the Mit. that unequal distribution by the father of ancestral property among his sons should not be resorted to, as it has come to be abhorred by the people. The Smṛticandrikā does not approve of the definition of *dāya* given by the Mit.⁸⁰⁸ The Smṛticandrikā does not accept Vijñāneśvara's explanation of the word ‘apratiṣṭhitā’ occurring in the sūtra of Gautama, but upholds Aparārka's explanation of it (vide note 771 above). The Smṛticandrikā favours the theory of spiritual benefit in matters of succession and therefore among daughters prefers one that has sons over another daughter who is sonless.⁸⁰⁹ It criticizes the reasons advanced by the Mit. for preferring the mother over the father as an heir to their deceased son and says that both parents succeed together.⁸¹⁰ Though the Smṛticandrikā in this way in some cases criticizes the Mit., it generally follows its lead. It holds, just as the Mit. does, that sons acquire by birth ownership in ancestral property. The author asserts that he puts forward no imaginary views but only such views as are based on (authoritative) texts.⁸¹¹