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

156 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [S. IV. 8. 12-15 / M. p. 79 l. 33-p. 80 l. 20
say that the word strī (in Gautama's text) is illustrative of (and so inclu-
sive of) the father also.
In default of the daughter the daughter's son (takes the wealth)
since Viṣṇu says ^1
When there is no continuance of the line (of a man) through son or
grandson the daughter's sons obtain the estate. In regard to the offering
of obsequial rites to ancestors daughter's sons are regarded as son's sons.
In default of daughter's son the father (succeeds) and in default of
him the mother. And so Kātyāyana says—
Of him who is sonless (and dies) the widow born of a good family
(who is chaste) also daughters, in default of them the father, the
mother, the brother, (brother's) sons are declared (to be heirs in order).^2
*And Viṣṇu (Dh^3 S 17. 4-11) says wealth of the sonless goes to his
wife, in default of her to the daughter, in default of her to the
daughter's son, in default of him to the father, in default of him
to the mother, in default of her to the brother, in default of him
to the brother's son, in default of him to the sakulyas (agnatic kinsmen).
As for what Vijñāneśvara says, viz. that first the mother succeeds to the
estate (of her deceased son) and then the father on the ground that in the
clause expanding (the word pitarau) which conveys its sense the word
mātṛ (mother) occurs first, though in pitarau (an instance of) an eka-
śeṣa which is an exception to Dvandva (compounds in general) no (par-
ticular) order is perceptible, and on the ground of following the order (of the
words) in the dvandva (here mātāpitarau) to which (the ekaśeṣa pitarau)
is an exception, and on the ground that the father is common to other sons
(from other wives) while the mother is not; that is refuted by the very
fact of its being in conflict with these texts (of Viṣṇu and Kātyāyana)
and (that opinion is also refuted by this viz.) there is no authority for
(saying that) the word mātṛ does (must) occur first in the clause of expanding
(the word pitarau), for (saying that) ekaśeṣa is an exception to (the
ordinary) dvandva since it (ekaśeṣa pitarau) is allowed optionally with

1. This does not occur in the printed Viṣṇu Dh. S. but compare Viṣṇu Dh. S. 15. 47 and
   Manu 9. 136.
2. This passage is quoted in Ādarśa on fols. 101a-b, at p. 111.
3. This is attributed to Bṛhad-Viṣṇu by the Mit., Vīr. and other works and to
   Vṛddha-Vi. by the Pārijāta and Bhaviṣya. The readings of this passage quoted in the
   several works differ considerably. The printed Viṣṇu reads as in the text, but omits the
   śloka about the daughter's son. The Vyavahāranirṇaya reads Vyavahāranirṇaya pl. [?] [?]
   tadvat mātṛgāmī tataḥ pitṛgāmī.
   p. 117 (text)