DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0232
OBSTRUCTED INHERITANCE.
217
in which this principle has to be worked out in each case. Lecture
It would not be easy, however, to say anything new on
this subject after the exhaustive discussion it has met with
in several decisions of the High CourC of Bengal, and in
the Lectures of previous Tagore Professors.
Another point of difference between the Mitakshara and
Dayabhaga concerns the position of females among the in the *
remote heirs. In this case, however, Devannabhatta, Mitra-
migra and other writers of the Mitakshara School side with ' ’
the Dayabhaga. ' Those Indian writers who deny the right
to inherit of the distant female relatives found their opinion
chiefly on two ancient texts, which declare the general
incompetency of women to inherit. It has been pointed out
that these texts have no bearing on the Law of Inheritance
originally; but this is a historico-critical question, which
does not concern us here. The Dayabhaga takes these
texts to show that females can never inherit except those
mentioned in special Smriti-texts, viz., the widow, daughters,
mother and the paternal grandmother, who, according to
Jimutavahana, takes after the paternal grandfather. The
same opinion, says the Dayabhaga, is conveyed in the text
of Yajnavalkya (II. 135) on Succession, by the term Gotraja,
“ a family member,” literally “ born in the family, ” which
excludes female Sapindas, because they are not born in the
same family.1 I must note here an important variation of
reading in the text of Yajnavalkya just quoted. The
Dayabhaga reads Gotraja, and this use of the masculine
singular form (“ a male family member”) precludes abso-
lutely the notion of any female Gotraja being called to the
succession under this text. The’same reading is given by
all other Bengal writers, including Kulluka, the celebrated
Commentator of Mann,2 and by the Mithila writers,3
and it may be traced to the Commentary of Apararka.4
1 (For the Sanskrit, see Appendix.') Read in Colebrooke’s translation
(Dayabh. XI. 6, 10) : “ And for the further purpose of excluding females
related as Sapindas (or the wives of Sapindas), since these do not spring
from the same line,” instead of “since these also sprung from the
same line.”
2 Gloss on M. IX. 187. Kulluka’s follower RaghaVananda has the same
reading (gloss on 185).
8 See Vivadach. p. 154 ; Vivadachandra (MS.)
4 Several MSS. of the text of the Yajnavalkya-smriti, especially those
coming from Bengal, appear likewise to have preserved this reading, and
it has been adopted from them in the two Calcutta Editions of the Sans-
krit text of that work, and in Professor Stenzler’s Edition. Mandlik’s
217
in which this principle has to be worked out in each case. Lecture
It would not be easy, however, to say anything new on
this subject after the exhaustive discussion it has met with
in several decisions of the High CourC of Bengal, and in
the Lectures of previous Tagore Professors.
Another point of difference between the Mitakshara and
Dayabhaga concerns the position of females among the in the *
remote heirs. In this case, however, Devannabhatta, Mitra-
migra and other writers of the Mitakshara School side with ' ’
the Dayabhaga. ' Those Indian writers who deny the right
to inherit of the distant female relatives found their opinion
chiefly on two ancient texts, which declare the general
incompetency of women to inherit. It has been pointed out
that these texts have no bearing on the Law of Inheritance
originally; but this is a historico-critical question, which
does not concern us here. The Dayabhaga takes these
texts to show that females can never inherit except those
mentioned in special Smriti-texts, viz., the widow, daughters,
mother and the paternal grandmother, who, according to
Jimutavahana, takes after the paternal grandfather. The
same opinion, says the Dayabhaga, is conveyed in the text
of Yajnavalkya (II. 135) on Succession, by the term Gotraja,
“ a family member,” literally “ born in the family, ” which
excludes female Sapindas, because they are not born in the
same family.1 I must note here an important variation of
reading in the text of Yajnavalkya just quoted. The
Dayabhaga reads Gotraja, and this use of the masculine
singular form (“ a male family member”) precludes abso-
lutely the notion of any female Gotraja being called to the
succession under this text. The’same reading is given by
all other Bengal writers, including Kulluka, the celebrated
Commentator of Mann,2 and by the Mithila writers,3
and it may be traced to the Commentary of Apararka.4
1 (For the Sanskrit, see Appendix.') Read in Colebrooke’s translation
(Dayabh. XI. 6, 10) : “ And for the further purpose of excluding females
related as Sapindas (or the wives of Sapindas), since these do not spring
from the same line,” instead of “since these also sprung from the
same line.”
2 Gloss on M. IX. 187. Kulluka’s follower RaghaVananda has the same
reading (gloss on 185).
8 See Vivadach. p. 154 ; Vivadachandra (MS.)
4 Several MSS. of the text of the Yajnavalkya-smriti, especially those
coming from Bengal, appear likewise to have preserved this reading, and
it has been adopted from them in the two Calcutta Editions of the Sans-
krit text of that work, and in Professor Stenzler’s Edition. Mandlik’s