DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0099
84
Lecture
IV.
Wbat was
left of it.
HINDU FAMILY SYSTEM.
writers of the middle period of Indian Law1 that in pro-
perty inherited from the grandfather the sons possess an
equal right with the father. In an anonymous metrical
text a similar distinction as to the comparative right of
the father and of the sons is made between the gems,
pearls, corals and the like on the one hand, and the
whole immovable estate on the other hand. Another
text of doubtful origin states that immovables and
bipeds, though acquired by the father himself, must not
be given away or sold without convening all the sons,
because those who are born, and even those who are
yet unbegotten or in the womb, require means of subsist-
ence. It is worthy of remark that the tendency to pro-
tect the property against dissipation has led to a restric-
tion of the father’s proprietary right over immovables,
even in the cases of his own acquisitions. It would be
a mistake, however, to interpret these texts literally. The
sons might interfere where the father was about to give
away his entire property to the Brahmans or to dissipate it.
But the absence of their consent could not invalidate the
gift or alienation, where it had been accomplished. And
so we find it stated that even a single coparcener may
give, mortgage or sell immovable property, where the
family are in distress, or for a pious purpose.2
In spite of all such inroads on the paternal authority, the
position of the patriarch at the head of a joint family must
have constantly remained one of great dignity, even in the
middle period of Indian Law. Owing to the custom of
early marriages, he might find himself a grandfather
shortly after thirty, and a great-grandfather before fifty.
All his grandsons and great-grandsons would stand in the
same relation towards him as his sons; and their wives
would be considered as equal to his daughters. Thus a
daughter-in-law is expected to prostrate herself on the
ground before her parents-in-law, who in return of this
humble salutation may make her a present of Stridhana
(Padavandanika, or Reverence Stridhana). Nor were the
junior family members likely to emancipate themselves
from this patriarchal despotism by founding separate
households. Even now-a-days it is the rule that married
sons will rather bear with the inconvenience attaching
1 Vishnu XVII. 2; Yajnavalkya II. 121 ; Brihaspati, Vyasa. Katyayana.
2 Brihaspati in some works, an anonymous writer in others.
Lecture
IV.
Wbat was
left of it.
HINDU FAMILY SYSTEM.
writers of the middle period of Indian Law1 that in pro-
perty inherited from the grandfather the sons possess an
equal right with the father. In an anonymous metrical
text a similar distinction as to the comparative right of
the father and of the sons is made between the gems,
pearls, corals and the like on the one hand, and the
whole immovable estate on the other hand. Another
text of doubtful origin states that immovables and
bipeds, though acquired by the father himself, must not
be given away or sold without convening all the sons,
because those who are born, and even those who are
yet unbegotten or in the womb, require means of subsist-
ence. It is worthy of remark that the tendency to pro-
tect the property against dissipation has led to a restric-
tion of the father’s proprietary right over immovables,
even in the cases of his own acquisitions. It would be
a mistake, however, to interpret these texts literally. The
sons might interfere where the father was about to give
away his entire property to the Brahmans or to dissipate it.
But the absence of their consent could not invalidate the
gift or alienation, where it had been accomplished. And
so we find it stated that even a single coparcener may
give, mortgage or sell immovable property, where the
family are in distress, or for a pious purpose.2
In spite of all such inroads on the paternal authority, the
position of the patriarch at the head of a joint family must
have constantly remained one of great dignity, even in the
middle period of Indian Law. Owing to the custom of
early marriages, he might find himself a grandfather
shortly after thirty, and a great-grandfather before fifty.
All his grandsons and great-grandsons would stand in the
same relation towards him as his sons; and their wives
would be considered as equal to his daughters. Thus a
daughter-in-law is expected to prostrate herself on the
ground before her parents-in-law, who in return of this
humble salutation may make her a present of Stridhana
(Padavandanika, or Reverence Stridhana). Nor were the
junior family members likely to emancipate themselves
from this patriarchal despotism by founding separate
households. Even now-a-days it is the rule that married
sons will rather bear with the inconvenience attaching
1 Vishnu XVII. 2; Yajnavalkya II. 121 ; Brihaspati, Vyasa. Katyayana.
2 Brihaspati in some works, an anonymous writer in others.