History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.127.2

v4.c63.t2.127.2

(dāyabhāga, 27) speaks of the daughter being entitled to maintenance till marriage, the context shows (as remarked by the Sm. C. II. p. 296) that he is referring to the daughter of a person who was re-united at the time of his death. Bṛ. declares¹³⁶⁷ (S. B. E. 33 p. 378 verses 55-56), 'the wife is declared to be the inheritor of the husband's wealth and, in default of her, the daughter; the daughter, like a son, springs from the limbs of a man: how can another man inherit her father's property while she lives?'. Though the words of Yāj., Viṣṇu and Bṛ. were clear enough ancient commentators were not prepared to accept them in their literal sense. Viśvarūpa holds that Yāj. means only the putrikā and employs the plural in order to convey that several daughters may be appointed as sons. The Sm. C. II. p. 295 informs us that the same opinion was held by Dhāreśvara, Devasvāmin and Devarāta.¹³⁶⁸ The Mit. rightly refutes these views by saying that the word 'duhitarah' in Yāj. cannot refer to 'putrikā', since Yāj., has himself stated the putrikā as equal to the aurasa son (in II. 128), as the putrikā is included among the sons by Vas. and as the widow and the daughters are declared by him as heirs in the absence of all the sons, principal and secondary. Yāj., Viṣṇu, Bṛ. are silent as to whether any discrimination was made between daughters as heirs. Kāt. (926) gives¹³⁶⁹ a preference to the unmarried daughter and the Mit. and the subsequent digests follow Kāt. The Dāyabhāga¹³⁷⁰ (XI. 2.