व्यवहारमयूख (नीलकण्ठ भट्ट - पश्चिमी भारत की हिन्दू न्याय-संहिता एवं व्यवहार कोष)

S IV 1 1 2 ] DETERMINATION OF HERITAGE 77
M, p, 81 l, 25 p 32 l, 15 ]
The determination of heritage.*
Now (begins the discussion of) ownership that is useful in the deter-
mination of dāya and the like. And that (ownership) is a kind of capacity
arising from purchase, acceptance (of a gift) and the like. That purchase
and the like are the causes of ownership is understood from worldly usage
alone and not from śāstra¹ (alone), since it (the notion of ownership)
is seen even among those who are ignorant of śāstra and since it is more
cumbrous to suppose that ownership springs from (the prescription of) śāstra
(than the other theory) Bhavanātha² also in his work called Nayaviveka
says the same thing As to the text of Gautama (Dh. S. 10. 39--42)
'ownership (arises) by riktha (heritage), purchase, partition, seizure (of
things unowned) and finding (of hidden treasure &c,); in the case of
brāhmaṇas, what is acquired (by gift) is an additional (source of ownership),
in the case of kṣatriyas, gains of conquest (are an additional source) and
nirveśa (profit making and service) (is an additional source of ownership)
in the case of vaiśyas and śūdras (respectively)', it merely repeats the
sources (of ownership) that are already known from ordinary worldly life³
People employ the word riktha to denote that which becomes one's own by
the mere extinction of the (previous) owner's property therein. The
word mātra (mere) is used (in the above definition of riktha) to exclude
purchase and acceptance (from the denotation of riktha⁴). In this passage
(of Gautama) the word riktha is capable of denoting such an extinction (of
ownership) only, since it is mentioned along with (other) means of owner-
ship such as purchase and the like⁵ and on account of the maxim ' (the

1. Whether the question of ownership (over a thing) is understood from śāstra
   alone or from the usage of worldly people is a subject very elaborately discussed in the
   Mit The Smṛtisaṅgraha and Dhāreśvara held the former view, while the Mit, the Vīr. and
   most writers support the latter. Vide notes to V M pp. 114--115 for a statement of the
   reasons given by both sides for their views
2. He is a mīmāṁsaka who wrote a commentary on Śabara's Bhāṣya As the
   Smṛticandrikā quotes him, he is earlier than 1150 A D. Vide p 480 of the notes to V. M.
   3 Those who say that ownership springs from śāstra rely upon Gautama's text as a
   support. They argue that if ownership were laukika, Gautama need not have written an
   elaborate passage. To this Nīlakaṇṭha gives a reply in the following rather elaborate passage.
   Several digressions come in while Gautama's text is being expounded Anuvādaka (that
   merely repeats) is opposed to vidhāyaka (that prescribes). Vide notes to V. M. pp 164, 368
   for vidhi and anuvāda
   4 In the case of riktha the moment the previous owner dies his son or grandson
   becomes owner without any further act In the case of a gift or purchase, the donee or the
   purchaser must do some act (such as accepting the gift or taking possession &c).
3. The argument briefly is this—riktha in popular parlance means 'wealth which
   becomes one's own on the death of the previous owner' But in Gautama's sūtra 'purchase,
   partition &c' are means of acquiring wealth and not wealth itself Therefore riktha which
   is associated with them must also convey 'means of acquiring wealth' and not wealth itself.
   In the ordinary popular meaning of riktha two notions are combined viz wealth and mere
   extinction of previous ownership as a means of acquiring it Out of these two in Gautama's
   text we must understand the latter as the meaning of riktha. Vide notes to V. M. pp. 116-117.

• P. 89 (text).