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

A reunited (person) takes (the estate) of a re-united co-heir (who dies),
but a full brother (takes the wealth of) a full brother (dying).
This is an exception to the rule contained in the text "the wife,
daughters &c." (Yāj. II. 135). Hence the meaning is, what determines
the right of heirship for taking reunited wealth is not the relationship of
being a wife &c, but the fact of being a re-united member (with another).
The opinion of Vijñāneśvara, Madana and others is: since it is a general
rule that an exception has the same province (scope) as the rule (to
which it is an exception) and since the words "of one dying without male
issue" (occurring in the preceding verse Yāj. II. 136) are to be supplied as
connected (with this text), it also (Yāj. II. 138) applies to one who leaves
no son, grand-son or great-grand-son; therefore a reunited (coparcener) alone
will take the wealth of a deceased reunited coparcener of that sort (i. e. one
who has no male issue), even though nearer (persons) like the wife and
the rest exist who are not reunited with him (the deceased).¹ This (opi-
nion) is open to question. When it is possible to explain (a text) without
it (i. e. without resort to the principle of anuṣaṅga) there is no authority
for supplying (clauses from a previous text).² As for the sameness of pro-
vince (between a rule and an exception) it is not expected that it (same-
ness of province) should be complete in every respect, but only to this extent
that somehow both³ (rule and exception) relate to (the right of succession
among) the sapiṇḍas of the deceased. It may be objected that if the word
"of one sonless" is not to be supplied (in Yāj. II. 138), then the word "of
one gone to heaven" also cannot be supplied (in the same verse) and the
result would be that there would be no word meaning "of one deceased"
(with which to connect the verse Yāj. II. 138). (To this the
reply is) it would not be so, since that term (viz. of one deceased) can
be got from the words of Manu (9. 211) to be quoted hereafter, viz., "if he
were to be excluded from a share or if any one of them dies."⁴ If that term
(viz. of one sonless) be supplied (in Yāj. II. 138) the (unacceptable)
result would follow that of two sons or of a son and grandson, one being
re-united with the father and the other not so re-united, both will get equal

1. In the text on p. 147 read • गुणसंसृष्टिननसंसृष्टानादित • for गुणसंसृष्टिवनसंसृ-
   ष्टिनिहित
2. Anuṣaṅga is a technical term in the Pūrvamīmāṁsā (II 1 48) which means
   supplying a word or words from one sentence into another sentence or passage. Vide notes
   to V. M. pp. 266-267.
3. The rule "wife daughters &c." and the exception "a reunited coparcener takes the
   estate of a reunited coparcener" have this in common that they both relate to the succession
   of sapiṇḍas to a deceased person.
4. The verse of Manu (9.211) occurs in the context of reunion and therefore Yājña-
   valkya's verse (II. 138) can be connected with it and it is not necessary to understand cer-
   tain words like "svaryātasya" and "aputrasya" from Yāj. II. 136 into Yāj. II. 138. The
   maxim of interpretation is that all smṛti texts bearing on a topic are to be read together and
   supplement each other.