History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.305

v4.c63.t2.305

The verses of Yāj. (II. 138-139)¹⁴⁷⁸ on succession to a deceased reunited person are understood by the Mit. to be an exception to the rules contained in Yāj. II. 135-136 laying down that the wife and others inherit the property of a person dying sonless. Therefore it follows that where a person reunites with his brother and then dies leaving a son not reunited with him, it is the son who will inherit and not the brother, though reunited. But if A separates from two sons B and C of whom B reunites with him and C does not and then A dies, then the reunited son B succeeds to A's interest and C takes nothing. This is expressly stated by the Vivādacandra p. 85 that relies on the Smṛtisāra¹⁴⁷⁹. The two verses of Yāj. (II. 138-139) are variously read and interpreted by the Mit. and other commentators and it is not possible nor quite necessary to set out all these readings and explanations. Acc. to the Mit the two verses mean: 'in the case of a deceased reunited person, the (surviving) reunited member should give (to the posthumous son of the former) the share of the deceased but may take it himself if there is no son (but only a wife); but from among the reunited brothers, the full brother, if reunited, should similarly give to the posthumous son of the deceased the latter's share and (if there be no son) he should take it himself to the exclusion of reunited half brothers; a reunited half brother takes the wealth of the deceased reunited member (dying sonless) and not another half brother who is not reunited; a full brother, though not reunited, may take the wealth along with a half brother who is reunited but the latter will not alone be entitled'. In this interpretation the word 'asaṁsṛṣṭī' in the latter half of II. 139 has to be taken in two connections, once with 'anyodaryaḥ' in the first half and then again with 'saṁsṛṣṭaḥ' (in the 2nd half). This last word is to be understood in two senses, viz.