History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s90.27

v1.c6.s90.27

Nandapaṇḍita, though he generally follows the Mitākṣarā, was not a slavish admirer of Vijñāneśvara. He does not accept the explanation the Mitākṣarā gives of Yāj II. 17 (sākṣiṣūbhayataḥ etc.). Similarly on Viṣṇu 8. 12, 22. 41, 23. 11, 27. 2 he emphatically says that the Mitākṣarā is wrong.¹⁰⁵⁸ He prefers the father to the mother as an heir (on Viṣṇu 17. 6-7) and seems to have placed the paternal grandmother as an heir after the mother but before the brother (folio 101 b). He explains *sapiṇḍa* relationship in the same way as the Mit.¹⁰⁵⁹ does. He says that the word ‘bhrātaraḥ’ in Yāj. should be explained as standing for ‘brothers and sisters’ and that in the father's line, after the brother and brother's son, the brother's grandson succeeds and, on failure of the brother's grandson, the paternal grandfather, his son and grandson are heirs one after another, i. e. in each line three generations succeed and then there is a devolution in favour of the next higher line. This view is opposed to that of the Subodhinī and the Smṛticandrikā, which take only the son and grandson of each paternal ancestor. Vide my notes to the Vyavahāramayūkha for fuller details (pp. 253-254). Nandapaṇḍita stands alone among modern *nibandhakāras* in having recognised a uterine brother¹⁰⁶⁰ (i. e. the son of the same mother but of a different father) as an heir. It is remarkable that Nandapaṇḍita preferred a person's predeceased son's widow (i. e. widowed daughter-in-law) as an heir to that man's own daughter.¹⁰⁶¹