History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c73.130.3

v5.c73.130.3

51 begins by saying that whoever takes the wealth of a deceased person has to pay the latter's debts, so the great-grandson would have to pay the great-grand-father's debts if he received the assets of the grand-father. Therefore the Mit. on II. 50 expressly mentions that a great-grandson need not pay his great-grand-father's debts if he received no assets, because, otherwise being included in the extended meaning of putra, he would have had to pay. There was no necessity to bring in or mention the prapautra under II. 50 if the Mit. did not include the prapautra in the word putra. Again on Yāj. II. 51 ('putrahīnasya rikthinaḥ') the Mit. included even prapautra under the word *putra*. This shows that the Mit. is quite conscious that the three descendants of a man form one group and succeed to his estate and liabilities and putra includes three descendants wherever the context so requires. If the word 'putra' is not to be taken as only illustrative and as including both grandson and great-grandson, serious difficulties will arise even in the interpretation of Yāj. on which the Mit. comments. For example, in Yāj. II. 135-136 it is said that when a sonless man dies his wife, daughters and other heirs (named there) succeed one after another. If 'putra' is taken to mean only 'son' and no one else, then on the death of a man without a son his wife or daughter (whoever is alive) will take the wealth even if a son's son exists. But that would be absurd and is not stated by any one.