History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t1.96.3

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.