DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0152
MODERN LAW OF PARTITION.
137
the opposite doctrine of the Smritichandrika is expressly Lecture
refuted. The doctrine of the Smritichandrika is, however, VI-
upheld in the Sarasvativilasa (§§ 100—118) as far as parti-
tion after death is concerned ; and in regard to partition
during the life of the father, the author of that work
seems to assent to those who place the determination of 1
the share of a wife entirely at the option of her husband
68—79, 112). He also quotes the view that this ques-
tion, especially in the case of Cudras, has to be determined
by custom (§§ 79, 118). Modern custom in Southern
India appears to correspond to the doctrines of the Smriti-
chandrika and Sarasvativilasa.1 But in the other provinces
custom seems to vary, and there is no ground for the
present for deviating from the teaching of the authoritative
works, which is distinct and uniform in those provinces.
Those works 2 which follow the Mitaksbara3 in this where she
matter have generally adopted the other doctrine of Vijna-
negvara as well, that where a woman is already possessed
of Stridhana, she is to take so much property only as will »
make her allotment equal to a sou’s share.4 5 Many works of Question
the Mitakshara School0 agree in stating that on a partition the^step-
after the father’s death,6 stepmothers may claim a share as mother,etc.
well as mothers, and they found this opinion on the text
of Vyasa, under which sonless stepmothers and paternal
grandmothers are declared to possess the same right as
mothers, or on a text of Brihaspati. Some writers include
the step-grandmother, because of the term £Sarvah’ (all) in
the text of Vyasa. The Viramitrodaya (79—81), Vivada-
1 Mayne, § 402.
2 The Vivadachintamani (231 Tagore)’explains the first text of Yajna-
valkya differently, as declaring equality of division between the several
wives. The English rendering of this passage is very loose.
3 Colebrooke has been censured for introducing the term 1 life-portions’
into the first text of Yajnavalkya (Mit. I. 2,8). See’Mandlik, 213.2.
But this is a misprint of the Madras edition. The original edition has
like portions.
4 The Madanaparijata, while assenting to this doctrine, notices a literal
interpretation of the term ‘ a half ’ as well. Thus, if a son’s share were
to amount to ten Nishkas, the mother would take five Nishkas.
5 Apararka, Smritichandrika (IV. 7), Sarasvativilasa (§ 100), read “ The
sonless wives of the father” for “The wives of a sonless father ” in
Mr. Foulkes’s translation), Balambhatta. Vivadachintamani (240 Tagore),
Madhaviya (15). Varadaraja (9), Mayukha (IV. 4, 19).
6 That in a distribution made by the father, a son’s share should be
given to all the wives, no matter whether they have sons or not, is expressly
stated in some of these works only, such as the Viramitrodaya (19),
Vivadachintamani (ii?^.), Smritichandrika (II. 1, 39), Balambhattatika.
137
the opposite doctrine of the Smritichandrika is expressly Lecture
refuted. The doctrine of the Smritichandrika is, however, VI-
upheld in the Sarasvativilasa (§§ 100—118) as far as parti-
tion after death is concerned ; and in regard to partition
during the life of the father, the author of that work
seems to assent to those who place the determination of 1
the share of a wife entirely at the option of her husband
68—79, 112). He also quotes the view that this ques-
tion, especially in the case of Cudras, has to be determined
by custom (§§ 79, 118). Modern custom in Southern
India appears to correspond to the doctrines of the Smriti-
chandrika and Sarasvativilasa.1 But in the other provinces
custom seems to vary, and there is no ground for the
present for deviating from the teaching of the authoritative
works, which is distinct and uniform in those provinces.
Those works 2 which follow the Mitaksbara3 in this where she
matter have generally adopted the other doctrine of Vijna-
negvara as well, that where a woman is already possessed
of Stridhana, she is to take so much property only as will »
make her allotment equal to a sou’s share.4 5 Many works of Question
the Mitakshara School0 agree in stating that on a partition the^step-
after the father’s death,6 stepmothers may claim a share as mother,etc.
well as mothers, and they found this opinion on the text
of Vyasa, under which sonless stepmothers and paternal
grandmothers are declared to possess the same right as
mothers, or on a text of Brihaspati. Some writers include
the step-grandmother, because of the term £Sarvah’ (all) in
the text of Vyasa. The Viramitrodaya (79—81), Vivada-
1 Mayne, § 402.
2 The Vivadachintamani (231 Tagore)’explains the first text of Yajna-
valkya differently, as declaring equality of division between the several
wives. The English rendering of this passage is very loose.
3 Colebrooke has been censured for introducing the term 1 life-portions’
into the first text of Yajnavalkya (Mit. I. 2,8). See’Mandlik, 213.2.
But this is a misprint of the Madras edition. The original edition has
like portions.
4 The Madanaparijata, while assenting to this doctrine, notices a literal
interpretation of the term ‘ a half ’ as well. Thus, if a son’s share were
to amount to ten Nishkas, the mother would take five Nishkas.
5 Apararka, Smritichandrika (IV. 7), Sarasvativilasa (§ 100), read “ The
sonless wives of the father” for “The wives of a sonless father ” in
Mr. Foulkes’s translation), Balambhatta. Vivadachintamani (240 Tagore),
Madhaviya (15). Varadaraja (9), Mayukha (IV. 4, 19).
6 That in a distribution made by the father, a son’s share should be
given to all the wives, no matter whether they have sons or not, is expressly
stated in some of these works only, such as the Viramitrodaya (19),
Vivadachintamani (ii?^.), Smritichandrika (II. 1, 39), Balambhattatika.