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

186 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [S. IV 10. 22-25
M p. 27 ll. 1 20
take since in the text of Nārada (cited above) it is the mother alone that is
pointed out by the pronoun tat ¹ This view is in agreement with (every
day) usage. The words 'śeṣam-ṛṇāt mean, according to men conversant with
traditional usage, that the sons alone should take (the mother's property)
when it is equal to or less than the debt (due by the mother)
In the absence of the daughter and the rest the sons, grandsons and
the like should take since Kātyāyana says—
But on failure of daughters, her *wealth becomes the inheritance of the
sons.
This (superior) right (of inheritance) of daughters and the rest in
the mother's estate exists only in respect of the technical strīdhana previous-
ly enumerated in the words adhyagni (Manu IX 194), for if it (superior
right of inheritance) related to all wealth whatever in which the mother
has ownership then the technical terms (adhyagni adhyāvahanika &c.)
would be purposeless ² Therefore (it follows) that the texts above quoted con
taining the word 'strīdhana' from Bṛhaspati, Gautama and others such as
strīdhana shall belong to the children (of a woman) strīdhana goes to
the daughters have reference only to strīdhana technically so called. Those
texts again which though they do not contain the term strīdhana have the same

---

1. In the text of Nārada tadanvayaḥ occurs and in Yāj. (II 117) also anvayaḥ
   occurs and the question is whose issue is meant. The Mit. explains Yāj. by connecting
   anvayaḥ with mātuḥ Apārārka and Sm. C. connect it with daughter. The
   Dāyabhāga takes it in the same way as the Mit. does. Nīlakaṇṭha follows the Mit. and
   the Dāyabhāga. Vide notes to V M. p 290. Sāmpradāyikāḥ means men conversant with
   or following sampradāya (traditional usage). This refers to the Mit. The rule of
   dharmaśāstra was that sons and grandsons were to pay off the debts of their father and
   mother. Vide Yāj II. 50. The view ascribed to sāmpradāyikas is referred to in
   Madhavrao v Ambabai 26 Bom. L. R. 1210 at p. 1216.
2. Purposeless — No purpose would be served by separately defining adhyagni and
   the other kinds of strīdhana The words 'in the absence of daughters purposeless'
   are quoted in Manilal Rewadat v Bai Rewa 17 Bom. 756 at p 762 (foot-note) In
   this case a wife sued her husband at Ahmedabad for maintenance, got a decree for
   maintenance and for arrears and then died. The question was who was to be her represen-
   tative in appeal, her daughter or husband, as the money was not technical strīdhana.
   Telang J elaborately criticized the dicta of West J in Vijiarangam v Lakshuman
   8 Bom. H C. R. (O C. J) 211 at p. 260 and Mr Mayne's remarks in his work on Hindu
   Law and showed that both were wrong. Telang J concludes As regards that property
   which does not class as woman's property in the technical sense the sons and the rest
   take precedence over the daughters and the rest (p. 764) and that the heirs to strīdhana
   proper and strīdhana improper are identical, save that as between male and female
   offspring the latter have a preferential right as regards strīdhana proper while the former
   have a similar right as to strīdhana improper At p 765 Telang J remarks that sons
   and the rest means sons, grandsons, great-grandsons and no more Vide also Jhaverbhai v
   Kabanjirao 11 Bom. 285 (F B.) at p. 310 for the significance of 'sons and
   the rest.'
   P 100 (text)