History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.286

v4.c63.t2.286

*Strangers as Heirs*—In default of even bandhus, the Mit. states¹⁴⁶³ that the teacher (of the veda) is the heir of the deceased, in default of the teacher the pupil (and relies on Āp. Dh. S II. 6. 14. 3) and that in default of pupil a *sabrahmacārin* (fellow student whose *upanayana* was performed by the same teacher as that of the deceased and who studied the veda under the same teacher)¹⁴⁶⁴ inherits. In the absence of even a fellow student the wealth of a brāhmaṇa was to be given to some *śrotriya* (a brāhmaṇa learned in the Veda) as laid down by Gaut. (28. 39) and in default of a śrotriya in the same village, as said by the Dāyabhāga XI. 6. 27, to any brāhmaṇa, since Manu (IX. 188-189) says, 'in the absence of all (heirs), brāhmaṇas that have studied the three vedas, that are pure and restrained, take the wealth; in this way dharma does not suffer: the rule is that the wealth of a brāhmaṇa should never be taken by the king'. Nār.¹⁴⁶⁵ (dāyabhāga, 51-52) is to the same effect. To the same effect are Viṣṇu¹⁴⁶⁶ Dh. S. 17. 13-14, Baud. Dh. S. I. 5. 120-122 and Śaṅkha-Likhita, Devala (q. by V. R. p. 597 and V. C. p. 155). This direction of so many ancient sages has not been respected in modern times.¹⁴⁶⁷ Manu (IX. 189) and Bṛ.¹⁴⁶⁸ (S. B. E. vol. 33, p. 380 verse 67) say that the wealth of kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras escheats to the king in default of heirs up to a fellow student. When the king takes by escheat heirless property he has to set apart a portion of the wealth of the deceased for the maintenance of his concubines and servants and for the performance of his funeral rites and śrāddhas as stated by Kāt.¹⁴⁶⁹ 931. Kauṭ. III. 5, Nār. (dāyabhāga, 52) provide that the king (when he takes heirless property) should provide maintenance for his women and both the Mit. and the V. Mayūkha explain that the word 'women' stands for *avaruddhastrī* (exclusively kept concubine) and not for his wives (who would succeed as heirs and then there would be no escheat), because the word '*patnī*' is not employed in the verse. These verses of Nār. and Kāt. are the foundation of the right to maintenance of a concubine against the heirs of the deceased paramour in modern times.¹⁴⁷⁰