History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t1.96
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t1.96
- Language
- English
v4.c63.t1.96.1
There is great confusion and contradiction among the sūtras and smṛtis about the place of the several kinds of sons and about their rights. For example, Gautama (probably the most ancient among extant sūtrakāras) assigns the 10th place to the putrikāputra, while Baud., Kauṭ., Yāj., Bṛ. and Devala give him the 2nd place and Vasiṣṭha, Śaṅkha-Likhita, Nār., and Viṣṇu put him 3rd. The *dattaka* is placed very low in the list by most works except by Manu, Gaut., Baud., Bṛ. and Brahmapurāṇa (which put him 3rd or 4th). The 12 kinds are put in two groups by some works. Gaut. (28. 30–31) provides that the aurasa, kṣetraja, datta, kṛtrima, gūḍhotpanna and apaviddha are *rikthabhājaḥ* (take the wealth) and also belong to the *gotra* of the man whose sons they are, while the other six take only the gotra but not the wealth. Baud. Dh. S. (II. 2. 36–37) employs the same words *rikthabhājaḥ* and *gotrabhājaḥ* but differs from Gaut. in including putrikāputra among 'rikthabhājaḥ' and omitting him from the group of 'gotrabhājaḥ'.¹²³³ Another division (each having six kinds) is into *bandhu-dāyāda* or *dāyādabāndhava* (Manu IX. 158–159 and Nār. dāyabhāga 47) and *adāyādabāndhava* (Manu IX. 160, Vas. 17. 38, Nār. dāyabhāga. 47). The first group, acc. to Manu, comprises aurasa (also putrikā), kṣetraja, datta, kṛtrima, gūḍhotpanna and apaviddha.
v4.c63.t1.96.2
They are so called because they take the wealth of their father and also of his kinsmen (in the absence of nearer heirs), while the members of the 2nd group (which acc. to Manu IX. 160 comprises kānīna, sahodha, krīta, paunarbhava, svayaṁdatta and śaudra) are only bāndhavas (i. e. belong to the gotra of their father), but cannot succeed to the wealth of their father's kinsmen. Here also there is no agreement among the smṛtis. Vas. (17. 5-25), Śaṅkha-Likhita (q. in V. R. p. 247), Nār. dāyabhāga 47 and Hārīta include in the first group aurasa, kṣetraja, putrikāputra, paunarbhava, kānīna and gūḍhaja and the rest in the 2nd group. Kauṭ. asserts that only the aurasa son succeeds as heir to the kinsmen of his father while the others (that are not procreated by him) succeed only to the father who brings them up, but not to his kinsmen. Yāj. II. 132 states that each of the twelve kinds mentioned by him takes the wealth of the father and offers *piṇḍa* to him in default of the preceding one and further requires that this is so only if it is certain that the sons are of the same caste as that of the father. Gaut. 28. 32 states that¹²³⁴ the kānīna and the other sons called *gotrabhājaḥ* (in 28. 31) take only one fourth of the estate of the father if no aurasa nor any of the other sons called *rikthabhājaḥ* exists (and the rest of the estate is taken by the sapiṇḍas), while Kauṭ., Devala and Kāt.
v4.c63.t1.96.3
(857) state that the dattaka, kṣetraja and other kinds of sons are entitled to one third share only if an aurasa is born provided they are of the same *varṇa* and that if they are of a different caste, they are only entitled to food and raiment. If a man, having no son, made his daughter a putrikā or thinking himself to be impotent had a kṣetraja son or adopted a son and then an aurasa son was born, difficult questions of the distribution of his property arose on which there was no unanimity. Manu IX. 163 says that only the aurasa son is entitled to all the paternal wealth and all the other kinds should be given maintenance in order to avoid the fault of being cruel. But as regards the case where a putrikā is first made and then an aurasa is born Manu (IX. 134) prescribes that these two should divide the paternal estate equally,¹²³⁵ while Manu IX. 164 asks the aurasa to give 1/5 or 1/6 of the paternal wealth to the kṣetraja. This confusion and contradiction about the places and the shares of the several sons leads one to infer that the institution of several kinds of sons was not very common or generally recognized, was rather confined to some localities or communities and was dying out even in the times of the ancient smṛtis, if it ever existed in full force at all at any time.