History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.149

v4.c63.t2.149

*The daughter's son* (*dauhitra*). On failure of daughters the daughter's son inherits. Gaut., Āp., Vas., are all silent about the daughter's son and so are Yāj. and Viṣṇu. But it has been plausibly urged by Viśvarūpa that, since¹³⁸¹ Yāj. himself has (in II. 134) stated that the illegitimate son of a śūdra takes the whole estate if there be no legitimate son provided there exists no heir up to the daughter's son, the latter must have been intended to be an heir by Yāj. taking after the daughters. The Madanapārijāta (p. 672) relies on the word 'ca' in Yāj. to bring in the daughter's son. Though the printed text of Viṣṇu Dh. S. is silent about the daughter's son, the Mit., the Dāyabhāga and others quote a verse of Viṣṇu,¹³⁸² 'when there is no continuance of lineage through sons and son's son the daughter's sons take the wealth (of the deceased owner); in offering śrāddha to the ancestors, daughter's sons are regarded as son's sons'. The V. Mayūkha (p. 142) includes a sūtra about the dauhitra in Viṣṇu Dh. S. Govindarāja, a commentator of Manu, is said by the Dāyabhāga, to have held, relying on this verse of Viṣṇu, that the daughter's son inherited the estate even before a married daughter of the deceased. But the Dāyabhāga did not approve of this view. The Dāyabhāga (XI. 2. 27) notes that Bālaka held that as the daughter's son was not expressly named by Yāj. he came in as an heir after all those that were expressly mentioned as heirs. Baud. Dh. S. II. 2. 17 distinguished¹³⁸³ between the putrikāputra and daughter but it is not clear whether Baud. intended to lay down that the dauhitra was an heir. In IX. 131-133 Manu expressly says that the *dauhitra* should inherit the entire wealth of a sonless man, that he should offer one piṇḍa to his father and another to the maternal grandfather and that in religious matters there is no difference between a son's son and a daughter's son, since their father and mother (respectively) spring from the body of the deceased owner. The context and the wording of these verses show, as held by Kullūka and other commentators, that the daughter's son here referred to is the son of the appointed daughter. But Manu IX. 136 is somewhat clearer. It says, 'through a son born to a daughter from a husband of the same class, whether she be appointed (as a son) or not, the maternal grand-father becomes one having a son's son; that son should offer piṇḍa and take the wealth of the maternal grandfather'. The Mit. takes the word 'akṛtā' in this verse as referring to the ordinary daughter, while Medhātithi and Kullūka hold that this verse also only refers to the son of the putrikā and that kṛtā means an appointed daughter with regard to whom an express agreement was made with her husband, while akṛtā means one (who is intended mentally to be appointed as a son) about whom there is no such express agreement. Bṛ. (S. B. E. 33 p. 379 verse 58) provides: 'just as (the daughter) gets ownership in her father's property (as an heir), though there may be other relatives, so her son also becomes the owner of his mother's and maternal grand-father's property'.¹³⁸⁴