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

718 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S. IV 4. 30-32
[ M. p. 47 ll. 5-12
Gautama (28 37) says even the son of a śūdra woman born to a man
'who has no other child gets if obedient provision for his maintenance
Vṛttimūlam means source of livelihood The same author (Gautama
Dh. S 28-48) says sons born in the reverse order (i e. born of a woman
of higher caste from a man of lower castes) are treated like the son begotten
on a śūdra woman (by a member of the three higher castes) Pratilomāḥ
are persons born of women who are of higher castes as compared with the
caste of the begetter
Yājñavalkya¹ (II 133-134) states a special rule as regards one who is
begotten by a śūdra on a woman (of the same caste) not married to him

1. These verses of Yāj. have been the subject of numerous decisions in all the
   Indian High Courts. In Rahi v Govind 1 Bom 97 these verses are translated (at p. 102)
   and it is said that the dāsīputra is entitled to half the share of a legitimate son that if there
   be no legitimate son or legitimate daughter or son of such daughter the dāsīputra takes the
   whole estate and that if there be a legitimate daughter or such daughter's son the ille-
   gitimate son would take only half the share of a legitimate son and such daughter or daughter's
   son would take the residue. Yāj. does not mention the widow and the court thought in 1 Bom
   97 that she was excluded (being only entitled to maintenance) when in competition with the
   dāsīputra along with the legitimate daughter or her son. In Sadu v Baira 4 Bom. 37
   (F B.) it was decided that a legitimate son and an illegitimate son of a śūdra could form
   a coparcenary and that if the legitimate son died, then the illegitimate son would succeed
   to the whole of the coparcenary property even though the widow and daughter of the
   śūdra father were living In Raja Jogendra Dhupati v Nityanund L. R. 17 I A. p. 128
   the decision in 4 Bom. 37 that the legitimate son and illegitimate son of a śūdra can
   form a coparcenary and that the latter would by survivorship take the whole property was
   approved as to an impartible raj. Vide also Vella yappa v Natarajan 55 Bom L R
   1520 (P C.) There was an obiter dictum in 4 Bom. at p 52 that if a śūdra died leaving
   only a widow daughter and dāsīputra, the latter would take 1/3, the daughter 2/3 and the
   widow would be entitled to maintenance only and that this was one of the arbitrary
   arrangements which are not uncommon in Hindu Law (p. 56) But in Sheopuri v Gurava
   14 Bom. 282 and Ambaba v Govind 23 Bom. 257 at p. 265 this remark about the
   exclusion of the widow of a śūdra when an illegitimate son exists is doubted. In Meenakshi
   Anni v Appakutti 33 Mad. 226 it is said that the illegitimate son of a separated
   childless śūdra would succeed as co-heir with the latter's widow daughter or daughter's
   son. In L. R. 50 I A. p. 32 (= 46 Mad 107 = 25 Bom. L. R. 577) it was held that
   where as a śūdra died leaving his widow and an illegitimate son each took one-half of the
   estate. Another important matter is the meaning of the word dāsī The Bombay decisions
   have held that dāsī is not to be taken in the strict literal sense (a female slave) but
   means a woman kept as a concubine, the connection being continuous and lawful It
   must be shown that the connection between the śūdra man and the woman was not incestuous
   or adulterous in order that the illegitimate son might inherit Vide Rahi v Govind
   1 Bom. 97 at p. 110, Sadu v Baira 4 Bom 37 (F B.) at p. 44 Vithala v Pandu
   23 Bom. L. R. 595 (where the son of a married woman from a śūdra was held not to be
   a dāsīputra capable of inheriting even though the husband of the woman connived at the
   connection). Vide 39 Mad. 136 (F B.) for an elaborate examination of this question
   particularly at pp. 152-159. In that case the son of a woman who was at one time a
   dancing woman and followed the profession of a prostitute and who subsequently became a