History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.308

v4.c63.t2.308

(1) full brother (with the preceding word asaṁsṛṣṭī) and (2) 'reunited' (with the word 'anyamātṛjaḥ'). Further, acc. to the Mit. we have to understand 'eva' after 'anyamātṛjaḥ'. Aparārka (p. 748) reads differently and he, Viśvarūpa and Śrīkaramiśra (Dāyabhāga XI. 5-16) explain that a full brother though not reunited takes the whole estate and not the half brother though reunited with the deceased. The V. Mayūkha differs from the Mit. when it says that the word *aputrasya* (of one dying sonless) is not to be understood with Yāj. (II. 138). It derives two propositions from the first half of Yāj. II. 138, viz (1) the wealth of one dying reunited is taken by the surviving reunited member or members; (2) in a competition between reunited full brother and reunited half-brother, the former takes the whole. The latter half of II. 138 is an independent sentence (and not joined with the preceding half as the Mit. understands) and applies where a reunited member dies leaving a wife who is pregnant but that fact being unknown the other reunited members divide the estate. In such a case if a son is born the surviving members should hand over to the son the share of the deceased reunited member. But if no such son is born then the survivors may take the estate. In II. 139 the Mayūkha holds that the words 'anyodarya' and 'anyamātṛja' are not restricted to brothers only, but apply to a paternal uncle or his sons or other persons who were reunited, because their mother is also different from the mother of the deceased. The Dāyabhāga discusses Yāj II. 138-139 under the topic of succession to the separate property of a sonless man and its treatment of succession to reunited property is very meagre (vide XII).¹⁴⁸⁰ The V. P. p. 533 notices this and levels against Jīmūtavāhana the criticism that he got confused. Aparārka (pp. 748-749) seems to be of the same opinion as the Dāyabhāga. The V. P. follows the Mit. and criticizes the explanation given by Śrīkara, Sm. C. and others (pp. 535-538). It says that the texts of Śaṅkha, Nārada and others conflict with the text of Yāj. II. 135 and that the order of heirs as to a reunited co-parcener is based on express texts and not on Yāj. II. 135¹⁴⁸¹ or logical reasoning. According to the V. P. the order of succession to a deceased reunited person seems to be: (1-3) son, grandson, great-grandson; (4) reunited full brother; (5) reunited half brother and separated full brother; (6) reunited mother; (7) reunited father; (8) any other reunited member; '(9) half brother not reunited; (10) mother not reunited; (11) father not reunited; (12) widow: (13) daughter; (14) daughter's son; (15) sister. The V. Mayūkha gives the order as follows: (1) son if reunited; (2) son not reunited, though there may be reunited members (other than a son); (3) the parents if reunited in preference to other reunited persons (other than a son); (4) full brother if reunited; (5) full brother not reunited and half brother reunited; (6) half brothers and uncles, if reunited; (7) other male members reunited (in preference to wife though she be reunited); (8) wife if she be reunited; (9) full sister (or daughter according to another reading);¹⁴⁸² (10) any other sapiṇḍa who is nearest. It is to be noted that Manu IX. 212 prescribes a peculiar rule of succession for reunited co-parceners viz. that full brothers (not reunited) and full sisters of the deceased reunited co-parcener equally inherit along with half brothers that are reunited the wealth of the deceased. This verse of Manu has been variously explained by Kullūka, Aparārka p. 749, Sm. C. (II pp. 304-305), Nīlakaṇṭha, Vivādacandra (p. 83) and others.