History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.424

v4.c63.t2.424

If there be none of the above both Yautaka and Ayautaka strīdhana pass in order (acc. to Dāyabhāga IV. 3. 37 p. 98) to six heirs¹⁵⁵³ viz. the husband's younger brother, husband's brother's son, sister's son, husband's sister's son, brother's son, daughter's husband. Bṛ. says that the mother's sister, maternal uncle's wife, paternal uncle's wife, father's sister, mother-in-law, elder brother's wife are declared to be like one's mother, that when these women have no *aurasa* child or a son of their co-wife or a daughter's son or a son's son or stepson's son, then the sister's son and the rest may take their wealth. This text, acc. to the Dāyabhāga, simply declares that a sister's son and the others may be heirs to the strīdhana of the maternal aunt and the rest but the priority is determined among the six heirs mentioned above in Bṛhaspati's text by the principle of religious benefit. Though the sister's son is the first in Bṛhaspati's text, it is the husband's younger brother who stands really the first among the six if regard is had to the principle of religious benefit. The Vīr. (V. P. p. 554) states that in the absence of heirs up to the stepson and stepson's sons, the sister's son and the rest (mentioned in Bṛ.) are the heirs to a woman's strīdhana even when sapiṇḍas like her father-in-law are alive, since mere sapiṇḍa relationship would not count when in conflict with a special text. It does not appear that the V. P. holds that the six take in the order stated in the text of Bṛ.;¹⁵⁵¹ it rather states that among these six the choice of the preferential heir would be determined by greater or less propinquity¹⁵⁵⁵. On failure of these six the husband's sapiṇḍas, sakulyas and samānodakas take and then the father's kinsmen.