History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.127.1

v4.c63.t2.127.1

*Daughters.*—Daughters do not inherit as long as any widow of the deceased owner is alive. The daughter also had to struggle hard for recognition as heir just as the widow had. Gaut., Baud. and Vas. omit the daughter as an heir. Ap. Dh. S. II. 6. 143 recognizes the daughter as an optional heir (probably with sapiṇḍas). When Manu IX. 130 declares, 'one's son is like one's self and one's daughter is equal to one's son; how can another person take the wealth (of the deceased) when she who is the very self (of the deceased) lives', it appears from the context (IX. 128-129) that it is the *putrikā* (the daughter appointed as a son) that is intended to be referred to therein. Medhātithi, Nārāyaṇa and Kullūka interpret the word 'duhitā' in Manu IX. 130 as applicable to the putrikā only. In the Nirukta,¹³⁶⁵ Yāska cites Ṛg. III. 31. 1 as relied upon by those who support the claims of the daughter to inheritance and also derives the word 'duhitā' in various ways, but from his explanation of Ṛg. III. 31. 1 it appears that he is referring to the putrikā's right of inheritance. As the usage of appointing a daughter as a son became gradually obsolete, the ordinary daughter came to be recognized by analogy as the heir of a sonless man after the widow. Yāj. and Viṣṇu both recognize the daughter as an heir after the widow. Nār. (dāyabhāga, 50)¹³⁶⁶ recognizes the daughter as an heir after the son on the ground that she continues the lineage (of the deceased father) just like a son. When Nār.