DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0236
OBSTRUCTED INHERITANCE.
221
in Borrodaile’s translation. After Lavino; stated that, on Lecture
failure of the paternal grandmother, the inheritance belongs 1
to the sister, and having quoted in support of this propo-
sition texts of Manu (IX. 187) and Brihaspati, showing that
the right to succeed depends on propinquity, Nilakantha
goes on to say : “And (she inherits for that reason also)
because she is also born in her brother’s family (like other
Gotrajas), and partakes therefore of the qualities of a Gotra-
ja relation. It is true that she does not come within the
definition of a Sagotra relation. But this (quality of being
a Sagotra relation) is not mentioned here as a condition of
taking the inheritance.” The locus standi thus created for
the sister is that she takes as a Gotraja relation, according
to the etymological meaning of that term as denoting one
born in the same family. This, as pointed out by Messrs.
West & Buhler, shows, that all those females who are born
in the same family,—i.e., all daughters of male Sapindas
—are heirs under Mayukha Law. Nor is it probable that
Nilakantha meant to exclude the wives of male Sapindas,
for he brings in the grandmother as a Gotraja relative.
The Mitakshara finally takes a different view of the Nitak-
meaning of Gotraja than the Mayukha. It includes in this shaia'
term all gentiles,—-i.e., all those blood-relations who belong
to the same family (Gotra),—and this definition, while in-
cluding the wives, tends to exclude the daughters of Gotra-
jas, because these, by their marriage, pass into a different
Gotra, and marriage is obligatory under the Hindu Law.
The daughters can, therefore, come in as Bandhus only.
That they do take as Bandhus under the Mitakshara fol-
lows from Vijnanegvara’s observations on the meaning of
Sapincla, in the Chapter on Marriage, and from the fact that
he does not say (like Jimutavahana) that Sapindaship for
marriage purposes is different from Sapindaship as appli-
cable in the Law of Inheritance. To the male Bandhus, as
given before, we shall thus have to add 1. The daughters
of the owner’s descendants within six degrees; 2. In his
father’s line, daughters within six degrees, and their female
issue within four degrees. The order in which they take is
very difficult to ascertain, thus much seeming probable,
however, that the sisters take after iheir brothers. The
wives of collaterals may be supposed to come in directly
after their respective husbands.
Against this view of the Mitakshara Law it has been An oUjec-
urged that the Mitakshara must be supposed to have recog-tloa
221
in Borrodaile’s translation. After Lavino; stated that, on Lecture
failure of the paternal grandmother, the inheritance belongs 1
to the sister, and having quoted in support of this propo-
sition texts of Manu (IX. 187) and Brihaspati, showing that
the right to succeed depends on propinquity, Nilakantha
goes on to say : “And (she inherits for that reason also)
because she is also born in her brother’s family (like other
Gotrajas), and partakes therefore of the qualities of a Gotra-
ja relation. It is true that she does not come within the
definition of a Sagotra relation. But this (quality of being
a Sagotra relation) is not mentioned here as a condition of
taking the inheritance.” The locus standi thus created for
the sister is that she takes as a Gotraja relation, according
to the etymological meaning of that term as denoting one
born in the same family. This, as pointed out by Messrs.
West & Buhler, shows, that all those females who are born
in the same family,—i.e., all daughters of male Sapindas
—are heirs under Mayukha Law. Nor is it probable that
Nilakantha meant to exclude the wives of male Sapindas,
for he brings in the grandmother as a Gotraja relative.
The Mitakshara finally takes a different view of the Nitak-
meaning of Gotraja than the Mayukha. It includes in this shaia'
term all gentiles,—-i.e., all those blood-relations who belong
to the same family (Gotra),—and this definition, while in-
cluding the wives, tends to exclude the daughters of Gotra-
jas, because these, by their marriage, pass into a different
Gotra, and marriage is obligatory under the Hindu Law.
The daughters can, therefore, come in as Bandhus only.
That they do take as Bandhus under the Mitakshara fol-
lows from Vijnanegvara’s observations on the meaning of
Sapincla, in the Chapter on Marriage, and from the fact that
he does not say (like Jimutavahana) that Sapindaship for
marriage purposes is different from Sapindaship as appli-
cable in the Law of Inheritance. To the male Bandhus, as
given before, we shall thus have to add 1. The daughters
of the owner’s descendants within six degrees; 2. In his
father’s line, daughters within six degrees, and their female
issue within four degrees. The order in which they take is
very difficult to ascertain, thus much seeming probable,
however, that the sisters take after iheir brothers. The
wives of collaterals may be supposed to come in directly
after their respective husbands.
Against this view of the Mitakshara Law it has been An oUjec-
urged that the Mitakshara must be supposed to have recog-tloa