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

S. IV. 10. 13-15 ] HEIRS TO STRĪDHANA 183
M. p. 95 ll. 18-33 ]
Anvādheya wealth and what was given to her by her husband through
affection shall belong to her children, if she dies while her husband is alive
The same author (Manu IX. 192) particularises what is meant by prajā
(children).
When the mother is dead, all the full brothers (sons of the woman
deceased) as well as the full sisters should equally divide the maternal
wealth.
The meaning (comment) of the Mitākṣarā (on this passage) is:—where
owing to the non-existence of daughters it follows that sons become entitled
together (to their mother's strīdhana), there they take together ¹ (and
divide equally), but *where it is only the daughters that are entitled to
succeed, there they take together—this is merely what is repeated (by
this text of Manu); but it does not lay down a special precept as to sons
and daughters taking together (as heirs), which (rule) is unknown (from
any other text). But others (writers) say that (this text) lays down
a special rule not known from any other source, viz. that sons and
daughters succeed together as regards anvādheya and husband's gifts of
affection
Manu declares¹ a special rule about sisters:
of affection. From the way in which the two views are set forth and comparing this with the
way in which the Mayūkha sets forth two views with the words 'pare tu' (as above p. 749 n 1)
it is clear that Nīlakaṇṭha favoured the latter view. In Sitabai v. Vasantrao 3 Bom.
L R 201 the whole of the passage of the Mayūkha commencing with Manu IX. 195 up to
the text of Kātyāyana 'sisters having husbands should share with brothers' (Mandlik's
translation p 95 l 17 to p 96 l 2) is quoted, it is held that anvādheya extends to gifts
from parents as well as from husband, that saudāyika is not used in contradistinction to
anvādheya in connection with succession, that property given by a will becomes anvādheya
though wills were unknown to the Mayūkha and that sons and daughters equally succeed
to a woman's anvādheya In Dayaldas v Savitribai 34 Bom 885 the words 'others
say &c' are quoted at p 390 and it was held that where a Hindu female governed by
the Mayūkha law died leaving property which she had inherited from her father under a
gift after marriage and left daughters and a son, the property should be divided equally
between them all, the unmarried daughters having preference over married ones. In
Ganga v Ghasita 1 All 46 (F B) it was held that unchastity does not incapacitate
a daughter from succeeding to stridhana This was followed in 30 Cal 521 Vide Hiralal
v Tripura Charan 40 Cal 650 (F B) where it was held that mere leading a life of a
prostitute did not sever the tie of blood and so a prostitute's property in the absence of
nearer heirs passes to her brother's son In Tara v Krishna 31 Bom 495 a murali who
leads the life of a prostitute and has children was held not to be a kanyā and was held
entitled to succeed after all married and unmarried daughters In Jaya v Manjanath
19 Bom L R 820 it was held that property left by a naikin descends to her daughter in
preference to her son. Vide 1 Cal 275 for succession to anvādheye under Dāyabhāga.
¹ 1 This verse is ascribed to Bṛhaspati by other digests and Nīlakaṇṭha also seems to do
the same lower down (text p. 160).

• P, 158 (text)