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

174 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S. IV 9 15-22
[ M. p. 88 l. 35-p. 89 l. 30
because of the existence (in their case) of two reasons (for taking wealth)
viz. being a full brother and being reunited Hence Gautama ( 28. 26 )
says When a reunited ( coparcener ) dies one reunited takes the wealth
Bṛhaspati ( p 381 v 76 ) says
( Two coparceners ) who again ( i e after separating ) become reunited
through affection take the share of each other ( on death )
The following then is the essence extracted from the above (discussion)
The son whether reunited with his father or not should take the whole share
of his father since the fact of being a son is alone the determining factor
as regards the rights to take the share Even among sons if one is reunited
and the other is not then the ( son ) reunited alone takes (the whole share)
since the text says of one reunited the reunited ( Yāj II 138 ) In a
competition between a son reunited and any reunited person other than a son
the son alone ( takes the wealth ) since this has been expounded above on
the words dadyāc-cāpaharec-cāṁśam ( Yāj II 138 latter half ) In a
competition between reunited persons other than the son such as the parents
the brothers paternal uncles and the like the parents* alone take Among
them ( the parents ) Madana says¹ that the mother takes first and then the
father The brother uncles and the like ( when all are reunited ) should
take ( the wealth of a deceased reunited coparcener ) by sharing it equally
since the determining factor for being entitled to take the estate viz state
of reunion exists in the case of all of them When there is a competition
between a ( full ) brother not reunited ( on the one hand ) and a paternal
uncle half brother or the like ( on the other ) who is reunited they take
after dividing equally since Yāj ( II 139 and 138 )
A full brother even though not reunited should take the wealth and not
the half brother ( alone ) though reunited , of a reunited ( coparcener )
the reunited coparcener but in the case of a full brother the full
brother
If there is only the wife who is reunited ( with the deceased ) she alone
takes since the text is of a reunited coparcener the reunited coparcener
When there is a competition ( assemblage ) between the wife who is reunited
and other males who are reunited they alone take and not she So also
Śaṅkha and Nārada ( pp 195-196 vv 25-27 ) on starting the treatment of
reunited coparceners say
Among brothers if any one dies sonless or becomes an ascetic the rest
( of the brothers ) should divide his wealth ( among themselves ) except
the strīdhana ( of his wife ) . They should provide for the maintenance
of his wives up till the end of their lives if they keep ( unsullied ) the bed

1. The view of Nīlakaṇṭha will be different as according to him among parents the
   father comes before the mother
   P 151 ( text )