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

$\left.{l} Ś. IV. 8, 18-19
M. p. 81 ll 16-35 \right]$ PATERNAL GRAND-MOTHER AS HEIR 161
Even amongst them the first is the paternal grandmother, since Manu (9
217) says:
When even the mother is dead, the father's mother should take the
estate.
Although she (i. e. the paternal grandmother) is mentioned (by
Manu) immediately after the mother, yet, as it is not possible to make
room for her in the compact series (of heirs) ending with the brother's son,
she should be placed at the end after the brother's son following the rule
'those that come uninvited should be seated at the end'.
In default of her (i. e the paternal grandmother), the sister (succeeds)
since Manu (9 187) says
The wealth$^1$ (of the deceased) belongs to whomsoever is the nearest
(to him) from amongst the sapiṇḍas
and since Bṛhaspati says
Where there are many relations, sakulyas (persons belonging to the same
family or gotra), and bāndhavas (bandhus or cognates), he, who is the
nearest of them, shall take the wealth of a childless (deceased) person
and since she (i e the sister) also has the status of being a gotrajā
equally (with her brother) as she was born in the gotra of her brother.
There is not, however, (in her) the status of being a sagotra, that status
(of being a sagotra) is not however here (i e in Yāj) declared as the
motive (or reason) of taking the property (of the deceased)$^2$

fically named in the Mit. and Yāj are not heirs at all The grand-mother does not take it
as strīdhana (1 All 661) and takes only a limited estate as an heir (Dhondi v Radhabai
36 Bom 546) The passage of the Mayūkha about the grand-mother is quoted in 2 Bom
388 at pp 433--34. 'Grandmother' does not include a paternal step grand mother and a
sister would be preferred to a paternal step-grand-mother, vide Lingangowda v Tulsawa 17
Bom L. R 315.

1. This half verse is variously explained by Kullūka, the Madanapārijāta, the Bālam-
   bhaṭṭī and other works, the chief difficulty is caused by sapiṇḍādyah and tasya tasya Some
   take the first as equal to ' sapiṇḍāt yaḥ' and others as one word meaning ' sapiṇḍa and the
   like'. Some take one ' tasya' as referring to the deceased and the other to the inheritor,
   while others take both as referring to the inheritor, corresponding to yaḥ (one more yaḥ be-
   ing suppressed for the sake of the metre) Some take sapiṇḍāt as meaning ' sapiṇḍamadhyāt,'
   while others take it as referring to the deceased. Vide Lallubhai v Mankuvarbai 2 Bom.
   388 at p. 421 for a translation of this passage as 'whoever is the nearest sapiṇḍa his should
   be the property'
2. Nīl stands almost alone among writers of eminence in assigning a high place to the
   sister as a gotrajā. Even his own cousin Kamalākara does not do so. His reason is that the
   sister being born in the same gotra as her brother is a gotrajā and as Yāj speaks of gotrajāḥ
   as heirs, she is one Nīl. admits that she is not a sagotra, but Yāj. does not say sagotrāḥ
   but only gotrajāḥ This argument of Nīl is extremely specious There are two weighty
   objections against this argument. Whatever meaning Yāj might have attached to the word
   gotrajāḥ, authoritative commentaries like the Mit take it to mean sagotrāḥ The sister is
   no doubt a sapinda, but she is not a sagotra Though born in the gotra (and so a gotrajā
   in the etymological sense), on marriage she passes into another gotra and so is not a sagotra
   (which is the popular conventional sense of gotrajā) Secondly if the sister is to be re-
   V. M. 21