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

S. IV. 8. 9-12 ] DAUGHTERS AS HEIRS 155
M p. 79 ll. 14-32 ]
Therefore¹ it is established (by the foregoing discussion) that a lawfully
wedded wife, who restrains ( her senses), is entitled to take ( her deceased
husband's ) property. But if there be more than one they will take it after
dividing ( equally among themselves )
In default of her ( i e of the widow ), the daughter² ( takes the
estate of the deceased ) Hence Manu ( IX 130) says

• A son ( of a man ) is like the man himself and the daughter is equal
  , to the son How can another inherit the estate ( of a deceased person )
  when she ( the daughter ), who is his self ( as it were ), is living ?
  If there be more daughters than one, they should divide and take the
  estate. Among them also, if one is married and the other is unmarried, then
  only the unmarried one ( takes the estate ), by reason of the words of
  Kātyāyana :
  A wife who is chaste takes the wealth of her husband , in default of
  her, the daughter ( takes ) if she be unmarried.
  Among married ( daughters ), if one is rich and the other is indigent,
  then only the indigent daughter gets ( the estate ), on account of the dictum
  of Gautama ( Dh S 28 22 ) ' strīdhana ( woman's peculiar property ) goes
  to the daughters, unmarried and unprovided³ for ' Apratishthita means
  ' devoid of wealth '. Those who are well-versed in the tradition ( of law )⁴
  1 This paragraph is quoted in Hari v Vitai 31 Bom 560 at p 564
  2 The whole section about the daughter is quoted in 46 All 192 at p 196 ' Daughter '
  means ' legitimate daughter ' Vide Meenakshi v Muniandi 38 Mad 144 In Advyappa v
  Rudrava 4 Bom 104, it was held that a daughter was not debarred from inheriting to her
  father by reason of unchastity At p 111 reference was made to the entire silence of the Mit
  and the Mayūkha about the chastity of daughters when both are very particular about cha-
  stity in widows and at p 114 the passages of Manu and Kātyāyana and Mayūkha's remarks
  thereon are quoted This case was approved of in Tara v Krishna 31 Bom 495 and followed
  in Kojiyadu v Lakshmi 5 Mad 149 Several daughters succeed as tenants-in-common and in
  Bombay take absolute estates which they can dispose of even by will Vide Babaji v Balaji 5
  Bom 660, Bulakhidas v Keshavlal 6 Bom 85 ( where the verse of Manu and the words ' If
  there be more take the estate ' are quoted ), Bhagirathibai v Kahnujirao 11
  Bom 285 (F B ), Vithappa v Savitri 34 Bom 510 (=12 Bom L R 487 ), Balvantrao v
  Bajirao 47 I A 213 at p 223 (=22 Bom L R 1070 ) But in all other provinces daughters
  take only life estates Vide 47 I A 213 at p 221 ( in which the difference between the Bom-
  bay view and the view of the other courts is explained as due to the dominating influence of
  the Mayūkha in the former )
  3 The word ' unprovided for ' is used in contradistinction to ' enriched ', as was held
  in 4 All 243 and 47 All 403, in both of which it was further held that the source of the pro-
  vision is immaterial The text of Gautama and the Mayūkha thereon are referred to in Jam-
  nabai v Khimji 14 Bom 1 at p 13 In Totawa v Basawa 23 Bom 229 it was said that the
  courts ought not to go minutely into the question of the poverty of daughters, yet where the
  difference in wealth is marked, the whole property passes to the poorest daughter. In Mithila
  there is no distinction between rich and poor daughters and in Bengal under Dāyabhāga the
  criterion is the actual or potential capacity of having male issue
  4 Nil has in mind Vijñānes'vara, who propounds this view in the Mit.
• P 141 ( text ).