History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.509

v7.c93.509

The V. M. has a long disquisition on the principle of anusaṅga applied by the Mit and Madanaratna to the succession to the wealth of one who died re-united. Yāj. II 135-136 lay down the order of succession to the wealth of a person dying sonless Yāj. II. 137 deals with succession to the property of a forest hermit, an ascetic or a perpetual Vedic student The Mit. then holds that Yāj. II. 138 ‘saṁsṛṣṭinastu saṁsṛṣṭī’ is to be construed as an exception to Yāj. II 135-136 and understands that the words ‘of one dying without having a son’ (grandson or great-grandson) are to be supplied before Yāj II. 138 from II. 136 (i. e. there is to be anusaṅga of the words ‘svaryātasyāputrasya’. The V. M. does not approve of this and states that there is no rational ground for applying the principle of anusaṅga and therefore the order of succession to the property left by one re-united propounded by V. M. becomes different from that of the Mit. The whole discussion is rather abstruse and lengthy and the present writer feels that the space required for exposition should be saved. Those interested may consult the exhaustive notes (pp 265-275) in the edition of the Vyavahāramayūkha (Poona, 1926) on the passages of the V. M. beginning with the one in the note below²¹³⁸