History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.213

v4.c63.t2.213

Viṣṇu quoted by the Mit. (not found in the printed Dharmasūtra) prescribes: 'If there be no son or grandson left for continuing the line, the daughter's sons shall take the wealth, for in regard to the obsequies of ancestors daughter's sons are regarded as son's sons'. This is in line with Manu IX. 136 (cited above on p. 720) which says that the daughter's son should offer the piṇḍa and take the wealth. Therefore it appears that Manu, Viṣṇu and others relied upon the capacity for the offering of piṇḍa as the reason for being entitled as heir, but that this idea was vague and not elaborated in any way. The idea that blood relationship settled the right to inheritance is implicit in the order of heirs in Yāj. Yāj. (II. 127) in speaking of the kṣetraja son says that he inherits the wealth of both (the begetter and the husband of the wife on whom he is begotten) *and* offers piṇḍa to both. He *does not* state that because he offers piṇḍa to both he inherits the wealth. So this verse also favours the view that offering of piṇḍa was a duty laid upon him who took the wealth (except in the case of male issue). Hence it appears that the theory of the Mit. also has a very respectable antiquity and further it has been followed by most medieval writers throughout India (except in Bengal).