DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0198
UNOBSTRUCTED INHERITANCE.
183
time when the legitimate son was born. Vasishtha, as Lecture
explained by his Commentator Krishnapandita, states that, VIIT-
in this case, the property shall be divided equally between
the adopted son and the legitimate soA. This is precisely
what Vriddha Gautama prescribes in the passage adduced
before ; but as this text is explained away in the Dattaka-
mimamsa and Dattakachandrika, while the second text of
Vasishtha, where it is quoted,1 has a totally different reading,
the law regarding the equal division of the estate between
those two sons has never obtained. This may be regretted,
as this rule appears to correspond to actual practice in
some parts of India, and is certainly more equitable than ■
the established rule.
To speak of an established rule in this case is indeed a
rather bold figure of speech, as the variance of doctrine is
very considerable.2 (1) Those texts which make the share of
the adopted son a third, are relied on by the leading writers
of the Bengal School; and those which make it a fourth,
are relied on in the Benares, Bombay and South Indian
Schools. Nandapandita has followed the latter doctrine in
his Treatise on Adoption, the Dattakamimamsa; but in the
Vaijayanti (XV. 30), where the same subject is treated at
more length, he takes an intermediate course, making the
application of the two rules to alternate, according as the
adopted son is more or less virtuous. Much the same course
is adopted in the Dattakachandrika and Vivadachinta-
mani. (2) The Dattakachandrika makes the adopted and
legitimate sons to take equal shares in the case of Cudras.
(3) The terms “a third share” and “a fourth share,”
exactly as in the analogous case of the fourth share allotted
to a daughter,3 have been variously explained as denoting
a part of the whole, or a part of the legitimate son’s share,
or a part of what the adopted son would have taken had
he been a legitimate son. The last interpretation is rather
harsh on the adopted son. Supposing the two legitimate
1 The Benares Edition of Vasishtha, on which Dr. Buhler’s translation
is based, has W I The Vivadachintamani (p. 150) and Dattaka-
chandrika (p. 78) have UN ^5 an(j ’IST'G f°rmer reading
being a misprint for as the sequel shows (Sutherland) :—“ Pro-
vided (the estate) may not have been expended in acts of merit (by
the legitimate son).”
2 Mayne, § 157 ; W. Macnaghten, I. 70. 3 See flrate, pp. 179—182.
183
time when the legitimate son was born. Vasishtha, as Lecture
explained by his Commentator Krishnapandita, states that, VIIT-
in this case, the property shall be divided equally between
the adopted son and the legitimate soA. This is precisely
what Vriddha Gautama prescribes in the passage adduced
before ; but as this text is explained away in the Dattaka-
mimamsa and Dattakachandrika, while the second text of
Vasishtha, where it is quoted,1 has a totally different reading,
the law regarding the equal division of the estate between
those two sons has never obtained. This may be regretted,
as this rule appears to correspond to actual practice in
some parts of India, and is certainly more equitable than ■
the established rule.
To speak of an established rule in this case is indeed a
rather bold figure of speech, as the variance of doctrine is
very considerable.2 (1) Those texts which make the share of
the adopted son a third, are relied on by the leading writers
of the Bengal School; and those which make it a fourth,
are relied on in the Benares, Bombay and South Indian
Schools. Nandapandita has followed the latter doctrine in
his Treatise on Adoption, the Dattakamimamsa; but in the
Vaijayanti (XV. 30), where the same subject is treated at
more length, he takes an intermediate course, making the
application of the two rules to alternate, according as the
adopted son is more or less virtuous. Much the same course
is adopted in the Dattakachandrika and Vivadachinta-
mani. (2) The Dattakachandrika makes the adopted and
legitimate sons to take equal shares in the case of Cudras.
(3) The terms “a third share” and “a fourth share,”
exactly as in the analogous case of the fourth share allotted
to a daughter,3 have been variously explained as denoting
a part of the whole, or a part of the legitimate son’s share,
or a part of what the adopted son would have taken had
he been a legitimate son. The last interpretation is rather
harsh on the adopted son. Supposing the two legitimate
1 The Benares Edition of Vasishtha, on which Dr. Buhler’s translation
is based, has W I The Vivadachintamani (p. 150) and Dattaka-
chandrika (p. 78) have UN ^5 an(j ’IST'G f°rmer reading
being a misprint for as the sequel shows (Sutherland) :—“ Pro-
vided (the estate) may not have been expended in acts of merit (by
the legitimate son).”
2 Mayne, § 157 ; W. Macnaghten, I. 70. 3 See flrate, pp. 179—182.