DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0153
138
MODERN LAW OF PARTITION.
Lecture tandava and Vaijayanti, however, distinguish between step-
VI- mothers who have sons and those who have none. The
former shall take a son’s share, but the latter can claim a
maintenance only. The Vivadatandava extends this rule
to step-grandmothers?1 These views, judging from the argu-
‘ ments used to support them, appear to be due to the influ-
ence of the Bengal School. The same result has been
arrived at in the Madanaparijata by a different process of
reasoning, the texts of Vyasa and Brihaspati being entirely
ignored in that work, and both texts of Yajnavalkya being
referred exclusively to equal participation of the sons with
their own mother. This is, indeed, the plain meaning of
these texts, and it is highly probable that Vijnane^vara
himself understood them in the same way as his eminent
follower Vigvegvara. There has been a great deal of con-
troversy about this matter, which might have been avoided,
if Colebrooke’s rendering of this passage of the Mitakshara
(I. 7. 1) were quite exact. Thus ‘ his sons ’ should be ‘ their
‘ sons.’ It is true that Balambhatta and Mitraraicra con-
sidered the stepmother to be included in the term Mata in
the text of the Mitakshara, and the Subodhini is silent.
But these facts do not diminish the weight of the opinion
delivered in the Madanaparijata.2
The fourth A similar conflict of opinion, as in regard to the mother’s
dau'?hteia s^iare> prevails in reference to the fourth share ordained for
a daughter in a division among brothers. Only the opinion
of those who hold that the term ‘a share’ is indefinitely
meant, is far older and far more general in the case of th«
daughter than in the case of the mother. In the lifetime of
1 {For the Sanskrit, see Appendix.') “ We say that the same inter-
pretation holds good for the term ‘ grandmother.’ ”
2 The mother’s right to a share on partition under Mitakshara Law
should probably be restricted in another way also. The Madanaparijata
says {for the 'Sanskrit, see Appendix):—In a division of ancestral
property the mother does not take a share, but merely her own orna-
ments and the like, because the two texts (of Yajnavalkya II. 115, 123)
“ If he.” etc., and “ By those,” etc., relate exclusively to property subject
to the father’s control alone.” That the first of these two texts relates
to self-acquired property only is equally stated in the Vivadachintamani
(127, 230 Tagore), whfre the important word atra has not been trans-
lated. No other Digest contains this restriction. As, however, the
Mitakshara (I. 6. 7) refers Yajnavalkya’s text on (II. 114) on parti-
tion by the father to his self-acquired property alone, it seems to
follow, that the text {ibid. 115). which is merely an amplification of the
rule regarding equal partition, should be interpreted in the same way.
This is in accordance with the general policy of the Mitakshara Law,
especially with its treatment of the Law of Stridhana.
MODERN LAW OF PARTITION.
Lecture tandava and Vaijayanti, however, distinguish between step-
VI- mothers who have sons and those who have none. The
former shall take a son’s share, but the latter can claim a
maintenance only. The Vivadatandava extends this rule
to step-grandmothers?1 These views, judging from the argu-
‘ ments used to support them, appear to be due to the influ-
ence of the Bengal School. The same result has been
arrived at in the Madanaparijata by a different process of
reasoning, the texts of Vyasa and Brihaspati being entirely
ignored in that work, and both texts of Yajnavalkya being
referred exclusively to equal participation of the sons with
their own mother. This is, indeed, the plain meaning of
these texts, and it is highly probable that Vijnane^vara
himself understood them in the same way as his eminent
follower Vigvegvara. There has been a great deal of con-
troversy about this matter, which might have been avoided,
if Colebrooke’s rendering of this passage of the Mitakshara
(I. 7. 1) were quite exact. Thus ‘ his sons ’ should be ‘ their
‘ sons.’ It is true that Balambhatta and Mitraraicra con-
sidered the stepmother to be included in the term Mata in
the text of the Mitakshara, and the Subodhini is silent.
But these facts do not diminish the weight of the opinion
delivered in the Madanaparijata.2
The fourth A similar conflict of opinion, as in regard to the mother’s
dau'?hteia s^iare> prevails in reference to the fourth share ordained for
a daughter in a division among brothers. Only the opinion
of those who hold that the term ‘a share’ is indefinitely
meant, is far older and far more general in the case of th«
daughter than in the case of the mother. In the lifetime of
1 {For the Sanskrit, see Appendix.') “ We say that the same inter-
pretation holds good for the term ‘ grandmother.’ ”
2 The mother’s right to a share on partition under Mitakshara Law
should probably be restricted in another way also. The Madanaparijata
says {for the 'Sanskrit, see Appendix):—In a division of ancestral
property the mother does not take a share, but merely her own orna-
ments and the like, because the two texts (of Yajnavalkya II. 115, 123)
“ If he.” etc., and “ By those,” etc., relate exclusively to property subject
to the father’s control alone.” That the first of these two texts relates
to self-acquired property only is equally stated in the Vivadachintamani
(127, 230 Tagore), whfre the important word atra has not been trans-
lated. No other Digest contains this restriction. As, however, the
Mitakshara (I. 6. 7) refers Yajnavalkya’s text on (II. 114) on parti-
tion by the father to his self-acquired property alone, it seems to
follow, that the text {ibid. 115). which is merely an amplification of the
rule regarding equal partition, should be interpreted in the same way.
This is in accordance with the general policy of the Mitakshara Law,
especially with its treatment of the Law of Stridhana.