History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.646.1

v4.c63.646.1

The important question is whether the smṛtis declare the liability of the great-grandson. It is clear that smṛtis like that of Bṛ. expressly say that the great-grandson is not liable to pay his great-grandfather's debt. The Viṣṇu Dh. S. VI. 28 says that the descendants beyond the grandson need not pay if they are unwilling to pay. Others like Nār. IV. 4 and Kāt. say that the obligation to return a debt ceases from the fourth. The question is what is meant by the fourth i. e. is it meant to exclude, in calculating, the original debtor or to include him? It is possible to hold (particularly because the great-grandson is not expressly mentioned in most smṛtis) that the fourth means 'inclusive of the original debtor'. But this appears to be in conflict with the rule in Manu IX. 137 (which is the same as Baud. Dh. S. II. 9. 6, Vas. 17. 5, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 15. 46) that the son, grandson, and great-grandson confer the greatest spiritual benefit on the ancestor, the rule (Manu IX. 186, Nār. IV. 6) that *piṇḍas* (in *śrāddha*) are to be offered by three persons in descent and the general rule that whoever takes the inheritance must offer the piṇḍa and pay the debts of the ancestor (Gaut. XII. 37, Yāj. II. 51, Nār. IV. 23, Viṣṇu Dh. S. XV. 40 and VI. 29). Therefore, following the canons, viz.