History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.406

v4.c63.t2.406

The Mitākṣarā order of succession for all kinds of strīdhana, other than śulka and maiden's property, is as follows: (1) unmarried daughter; (2) married daughter who is indigent; (3) married daughter who is well provided for; (4) daughter's daughters; (5) daughter's son; (6) sons; (7) son's sons (here also the rule of *per stirpes* applies); (8) husband (if the woman was married in one of the four approved forms); (9) sapiṇḍas of the husband in the order of propinquity; on failure of any sapiṇḍa of the husband, her mother, then her father and then the sapiṇḍas of the father (before it goes to the Crown). But if the woman was married in one of the unapproved forms, then on failure of her descendants her strīdhana went to her mother, then to her father and then to the father's sapiṇḍas in the order of propinquity. On failure of the sapiṇḍas of the father it would (by analogy) go to her husband and then to his sapiṇḍas (before going to the Crown). When grand-daughters directly inherit the strīdhana of their grandmother they take *per stirpes* (acc. to the Mit. which quotes Gaut. 28. 15), if they are the daughters of several daughters.¹⁵⁴² The Mit. (on Yāj. II. 145), Aparārka (p. 721) and several others provide (following Manu IX. 198 = Anuśāsana 47.25) that if a woman of a lower caste dies issueless leaving strīdhana, then the daughter of her co-wife of a higher class inherits that strīdhana and on failure of such step-daughter, the son of the latter inherits. It may be noted that as regards succession to strīdhana, the rule of representation which holds good in relation to succession to males does not apply. When a male dies leaving separate property and a son and a grandson (son of a predeceased son) both succeed together, the grandson representing his deceased father. But if a woman possessed of strīdhana dies having only a son and a predeceased son's son, the son will take the whole of the strīdhana excluding the son's son. Vide *Bai Raman v. Jagjivandas* 41 Bom. 618.