History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c73.130.4

v5.c73.130.4

Therefore the word putra has to be interpreted in a wider sense in a proper context. Many works such as the Vyavahāramayūkha, the Vīramitrodaya, the Dattakamīmāṁsā interpret the word 'putra' as including three generations. Therefore, though the Mit. in its remarks on inheritance and succession expressly names the son and grandson only (lit. it should have mentioned only the son) it must be taken as including the great-grandson also, particularly in view of the fact that it refers to the great-grandson in its comment on Yāj. I. 50 and 51 as taking the riktha which the Mit. (on Yāj. II. 114) interprets as apratibandha dāya. Baud., Manu, Yājñavalkya speak of the three descendants and Śaṅkha-likhita, Vas. XI. 39 and Yama employ⁸³⁸ only the word *putra* or *suta* in relation to the three ancestors. Therefore, the remark of Dr. Kapadia in 'Hindu Kinship' on p. 162 'Vijñāneśvara understands by the word putra sons and grandsons only' is unjustified. It is impossible to hold with Dr. Kapadia that the Mit. ran counter to the express dicta of renowned Smṛtis such as those of Manu, Śaṅkha-Likhita and Purāṇas like the Viṣṇu-purāṇa III. 13.30 (quoted above in note 582) and that in its remarks on succession it forgot its own interpretation of putra on Yāj. II. 51. He has also not correctly understood the words of the Mit. introducing Yāj. II. 137: 'sons and grandsons take the wealth; in their absence, the wife and others; thus it is said (by me)'. This is wrong for several reasons.