History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.282

v4.c63.t2.282

Very elaborate rules have been evolved by Sarvadhikari in his Tagore Law Lectures on the Hindu Law of inheritance (2nd ed. of 1922, pp. 571–640). The author devoted great industry, labour and ingenuity in evolving those rules. But one regrets to say that he raised a stupendous structure on very slippery and meagre foundations. And the pity of it is that many Judges have more or less followed his lead, though emphatic disapproval of his views, whereby the list of bandhus capable of inheriting has been very much restricted, has not been wanting.¹⁴⁶¹ It is not possible to examine here in detail his reasonings and results. But the futility of much that he has evolved can and must be briefly shown. The only solid foundations that we have in the Mit. are: (1) the definition of sapiṇḍa given by it on Yāj. I. 53; (2) the remark that bandhus are bhinnagotra sapiṇḍas (as contrasted with gotrajas); (3) that the bandhus of a man may be described under three classes; (4) that those that may be called ātmabandhus succeed before those called pitṛbandhus and these latter inherit before mātṛbandhus. It is agreed on all hands that the nine bandhus enumerated in the verses of Śātātapa or Baudhāyana are only illustrative. Therefore, the nine bandhus expressly mentiond should not have been used to *exclude* any one as not a heritable bandhu, as we have not got anywhere an exhaustive enumeration. Any one who satisfied the first two requirements stated above was a bandhu. Of the nine bandhus enumerated in the verses quoted above, none is connected by direct descent with the propositus, his father or mother; but one is a descendant of his paternal grandfather, one of his paternal great-grandfather, two of his maternal grandfather, two of his father's maternal grandfather, one of his mother's paternal grandfather, two of his mother's maternal grandfather. Sarvadhikari makes a different classification of these (p. 627) viz. 'two are connected through the father, three through the mother, two through the paternal grandmother and two through the maternal grandmother'. The whole trouble has been caused by this latter grouping. Instead of emphasizing lines of direct descent, he catches hold of females who are never spoken of in ancient works in connection with tracing descent (except in the case of the mother of the man concerned). If, because the illustrations given happen to be connected only with four lines of families, persons connected with the propositus through other lines are to be excluded, there is no reason why a man's own daughter's son's son, son's daughter's son, sister's son, or sister's son's son should be held to be bandhus. They bear no close analogy to the ātmabandhus enumerated by Śātātapa. But it is admitted by Sarvadhikari that they are ātmabandhus. The terms ātmabandhu, pitṛbandhu and mātṛbandhu are mere labels or devices to show nearness and preference among bandhus. Acc. to the V. Mayūkha¹⁴⁶² the words pitṛbandhu and mātṛbandhu are to be dissolved as *ṣaṣṭhī-tatpuruṣa* compounds (pituḥ bāndhavāḥ or mātuḥ bāndhavāḥ) i. e. according to it pitṛbandhus or mātṛbandhus are bandhus of the father or mother and must also be bandhus of the propositus if they are to inherit. It is not known in what context the three verses quoted in the Mit. and other digests from Śātātapa or Baudhāyana occurred. In Manu V. 81 it is laid down that one should observe mourning on the death of a pupil, sacrificial priest and *bāndhavas* for the duration of *pakṣiṇī*. It is possible that the three verses only illustrate what is meant by bāndhavas in such a connection.