XIII, T9.
INHERITANCE.
193
*16. A father who is diseased, or angry, or ab-
sorbed by (sinful) worldly interests, or who acts
illegally, has not the power to distribute his property
(as he likes).
* 1 7. The son of a maiden, a son obtained through
a pregnant bride, and one born of a woman (whose
transgression was) unknown (at first and is found out
subsequently) : of these, the mother’s husband is
regarded as the father, and they are declared to be
entitled to shares of his property.
*18. A maiden’s son, whose father is unknown
and whose mother is not legally married (to his
father), shall give a funeral ball (of rice) to his
maternal grandfather and inherit his property.
*19. Those sons who have been begotten by one
or by many on a woman not authorized (to raise
issue to her deceased husband), shall all be dis-
meaning, viz. that a father may distribute his property among his
sons as he pleases. They add, however, that in doing so he must
be guided by lawful motives, such as compassion on an incapable
son, partiality for a pious son, and the'like. See Dayabhaga II,
74, 75? Colebrooke’s Digest, V, 1, 32. The Mayukha, on the
other hand, declares that this rule of Narada had legal force in the
former ages of the world only. See Mandlik’s Mayukha, p. 35
(transl. p. 43). Yayvzavalkya II, 116.
16. This rule ‘relates to the case where the father, through
perturbation of mind occasioned by disease or the like, or through
irritation against any one of his sons, or through partiality for the
child of a favourite wife, makes a distribution not conformable to
law.’ Colebrooke’s Dayabhaga II, 83. The Mitakshara (I, 2, 13,
14), cutting down the privileges of the father everywhere, interprets
this rule as a prohibition of any other mode of unequal distribution
except that by which the customary deductions are made in favour
of the eldest son, &c.
17, 18. Manu IX, 170-172 ; Yay/zavalkya II, 129 ; Vishmi XY,
10-17; Vasish/Aa XVII, 21-23.
19. Regarding the rule of Niyoga, or appointment of a married
[33] 0
INHERITANCE.
193
*16. A father who is diseased, or angry, or ab-
sorbed by (sinful) worldly interests, or who acts
illegally, has not the power to distribute his property
(as he likes).
* 1 7. The son of a maiden, a son obtained through
a pregnant bride, and one born of a woman (whose
transgression was) unknown (at first and is found out
subsequently) : of these, the mother’s husband is
regarded as the father, and they are declared to be
entitled to shares of his property.
*18. A maiden’s son, whose father is unknown
and whose mother is not legally married (to his
father), shall give a funeral ball (of rice) to his
maternal grandfather and inherit his property.
*19. Those sons who have been begotten by one
or by many on a woman not authorized (to raise
issue to her deceased husband), shall all be dis-
meaning, viz. that a father may distribute his property among his
sons as he pleases. They add, however, that in doing so he must
be guided by lawful motives, such as compassion on an incapable
son, partiality for a pious son, and the'like. See Dayabhaga II,
74, 75? Colebrooke’s Digest, V, 1, 32. The Mayukha, on the
other hand, declares that this rule of Narada had legal force in the
former ages of the world only. See Mandlik’s Mayukha, p. 35
(transl. p. 43). Yayvzavalkya II, 116.
16. This rule ‘relates to the case where the father, through
perturbation of mind occasioned by disease or the like, or through
irritation against any one of his sons, or through partiality for the
child of a favourite wife, makes a distribution not conformable to
law.’ Colebrooke’s Dayabhaga II, 83. The Mitakshara (I, 2, 13,
14), cutting down the privileges of the father everywhere, interprets
this rule as a prohibition of any other mode of unequal distribution
except that by which the customary deductions are made in favour
of the eldest son, &c.
17, 18. Manu IX, 170-172 ; Yay/zavalkya II, 129 ; Vishmi XY,
10-17; Vasish/Aa XVII, 21-23.
19. Regarding the rule of Niyoga, or appointment of a married
[33] 0