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

$\left.{l}S. IV. 8 15-16
M. p. 80 ll. 27-33\right]$ FATHER AND MOTHER AS HEIRS 157
the (regular) dvandva (mātāpitarau) and for saying that being common
and not being common are factors that determine the order (of succession)$^1$.
In default of the mother, the full brother (succeeds), in default of
him (i.e the full brother), his son (succeeds). As for what Vijñā-
nes'vara and others say, 'in default of full brother, half brothers (i e born
of a different mother) succeed and in default of them (half brothers), the

1. The whole of this section on the rights of father and mother is quoted in
   Balkrishna v. Lakshman 14 Bom. 605 at pp 609-610 (in which being a case from
   Ratnagiri the mother was preferred to the father) 'The father is preferred to
   the mother as an heir in Gujrat, in the Bombay Island and northern Konkan
   where the Mayūkha is the paramount authority, while in the rest of the Bombay
   Presidency the mother is the preferable heir Vide Khodabhai v Bahadar Dala 6 Bom
   541 An adoptive mother succeeds in preference to the adoptive father in the Bombay
   Presidency wherever Mit is supremo, Anandi v Hari 33 Bom. 404 Step-mother is not
   included in the word 'mother', vide Kesserbai v Valab 4 Bom 188 A remarried
   woman can succeed to her son by her first husband if the son dies after remarriage,
   Basappa v Rayava 29 Bom 91 (F B) Mother's unchastity does not debar her from
   succeeding, Kojiyadu v Lakshmi 5 Mad 149 and Vedammal v Vedanayaga 31 Mad 100
   but vide Ramnath v Durga 4 Cal 550 This passage is an excellent example of
   the brevity and vigour of Nilakantha's style Nil first condenses the remarks of the Mit.
   and then refutes its reasoning Pāṇini (II 2 29) lays down that several words may be
   compounded when they are together employed in the sense of 'ca' (and) and would be
   in the same case (when separately employed) Such a compound is called dvandva,
   mātāpitarau is an example of it Two other sūtras (Pāṇini I. 2. 64 and 67) lay down that
   when several individuals of the same kind (sarūpa) are grouped together in the same case
   relation, only one of them is retained and if the two individuals are male and female, the
   male is retained Pitarau is an example of chas'esa (lit where only one out of several is left)
   The general rule about dvandva compounds is that all the several words forming it are
   retained, while in such ekaśeṣas as pitarau, bhrātarau, only one word is present and the
   other (mātā, svasā) is suppressed. From this point of view ekaśeṣa may be said to be an
   exception to dvandva Such compounds are very limited in number The reasons which
   Mit puts forward in preferring the mother to the father are three, (1) even in expanding
   the ekas'esa pitarau the word mātṛ occurs first (mātā ca pitā ca pitarau), (2) in the
   regular dvandva form mātāpitarau, the word mātṛ comes first, (3) the father may
   have several wives from whom he may have several sons i e the father is common to
   several sons whose mothers are different, while the mother is not so Nil first of all says
   that the view of the Mit preferring the mother is opposed to the dicta of ancient sages
   like Visnu and Kātyāyana Then he examines seriatim the reasons assigned by the Mit He
   first denies that the ekas'esa is an exception to the dvandva According to the Siddh-
   āntakaumudī, both Ekaśeṣa and Samāsa are two out of five vrittis Besides when a certain
   thing is stated to be an exception the results stated as the rule do not follow at all But pitarau
   is only an optional form, as we have mātāpitarau also So Nil is right in saying that the
   ekaśesa pitarau being optionally allowed with mātāpitarau is not an exception Nil asserts
   that there is no authority for saying that in expanding the word pitarau or in dissolving the
   compound mātāpitarau the word mātṛ comes first This is an over-statement on the part of
   Nil Though Pāṇini does not say that mātṛ must come first, yet the Kāśikā and other gram-
   matical authorities have always for ages dissolved the compound as 'mātā ca pitā ca' Nil
   is also right in denying that being common to the son with other sons from other wives is a
   ground for postponing the father This argument of the Mit is extremely specious Vide
   notes to V. M pp. 241-244,