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

S. IV. 4. 27 30 SHARES ON PARTITION 97
M. p. 46 l 22-p. 47 l. 5 ]
born of a Vais'ya two shares and one respectively ¹
*Brāhmaṇātmajāḥ means 'born (to a brāhmaṇa) of (wives of the)
brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vais'ya and s'ūdra castes', kṣatrajāḥ means 'born (to a
kṣatriya) of wives of the kṣatriya, vais'ya and sūdra castes', and viḍjāḥ means
'born of wives of the vais'ya and s'ūdra castes'
Bṛhaspati (p 374 v 30) says
Land obtained by the acceptance (of a gift) should not be given to
the son of a wife of the kṣatriya or other (inferior) caste Even if their
father give it to them, the son of the wife of the brāhmaṇa caste should
resume it on the death (of the brāhmaṇa father)
Devala says
A son begotten on a wife of the s'ūdra caste by a person of the (three)
regenerate castes is not entitled to a share of land; but one born on a wife
of the same caste (as that of the father) would get all (including land);
this is the settled law ²
Bhūmeḥ means '(of land) though acquired even by purchase and the
other modes', but of chattels he (son begotten on a s'ūdra wife by a man of
the regenerate classes) does get a share The son, however, born of a s'ūdra
woman not married (to the putative father) does not obtain a share even of
chattels And likewise Manu (9 155) says
The son of a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya and vais'ya from a s'ūdra woman is not
entitled to (a share of) the heritage, whatever wealth his father may
give him, so much alone belongs to him
Bṛhaspati³ (p 374 v. 31) lays down a special rule after the death of the father;
An obedient and meritorious son born from a woman of the s'ūdra caste
to a man who has no other child should get maintenance, the sapiṇḍas (of
the deceased) should get the rest in equal shares
1 According to Manu III 13 a brāhmana could; marry a woman of his own caste
or of any one of the other and lower three varṇas and so on with the kṣatriya and the rest
In Rahi v Govind 1 Bom 97 at p 112 this text of Yāj and the explanation of the
Mayūkha are referred to and it is said that the marriage by the higher castes of girls of
lower castes is a luxury forbidden to the twice-born classes since the Kaliyuga commenced
and that 'this is one of many instances in which comparatively modern writers on
Hindu Law discussed, with as much zest as if it were living law, doctrines which in the
lapse of time had become obsolete' But in Bai Gulab v Jiwanlal 46 Bom 871
this passage of the Mayūkha (at p 884) is relied upon as one reason for holding pratiloma
marriages valid in modern times In Natha v Chotalal 32 Bom L R 1348 the
marriage of a brāhmaṇa with a s'ūdra female was held to be valid and the son born of such an
union was declared entitled to inherit 1/10 th of the estate of his father as well as his uncle.
Vide notes to Kātyāyana vv 863-864 for a brief criticism of this last case.
2 In Rahi v. Govind I. L R 1 Bom 97 it said at pp 106 and 112 that Devala's
text refers to s'ūdra women who are married to men of higher castes
3 This text of Bṛhaspati and the following one of Gautama are referred to in 7 Mad.
407 at p. 412 and in Rajannath v Nitar 48 Cal. 643 (F B.) at p. 686 (also
translated)

• P. 108 (text).