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

$\left.{l}S. IV. 10. 25-28
M. p. 97 l. 21-p. 98 l. 2\right]$ HEIRS TO STRĪDHANA 187
purport (as the texts of Bṛhaspati and Gautama which contain the term strī-
dhana) such as 'they should divide the maternal wealth' (Manu IX. 192)
have also reference to the same (viz. technical kinds of strīdhana), since
there is brevity in assuming that all the texts have one basis (or origin)¹
As for the dictum of Yājñavalkya (II 117) 'sons should divide equally, after
the death of the parents, the heritage as well as the debts,' it refers to what
is acquired by partition or cutting (sewing) and the like and is other than
the technical kinds (of strīdhana). Therefore the sons and the rest alone
should take the mother's wealth other than the technical one, even when
there are daughters.²
On failure,³ however, of both kinds of issue, Yājñavalkya (II 144)
states a special rule with regard to technical strīdhana:
Her kinsmen (bāndhavāḥ) should take it, when she dies without
issue
The same author (Yāj. II 145) sets forth the succession of kinsmen
according to the difference in the form of marriage:
The property of a childless woman (married) in the four forms begin-
ning with brāhma goes to her husband, in the remaining (four forms)
it goes to her parents; if she has given birth (to children) it goes to the
daughters

• In default of the husband, (the person) nearest to her in the
  husband's family takes (the strīdhana) and in default of the father, (the
  person) nearest to her in the father's family takes (when marriage is in any

1. 'All the texts &c.'—All texts having the same purport, though some of them may
   not contain the word strīdhana, should be understood as referring to technical strīdhana.
   2 The words 'As for the dictum daughters' are quoted in Manilal Rewadat
   v Bai Rewa 17 Bom 758 at p. 762 (foot-note) and the sentence 'therefore the sons..
   daughters' is quoted in Bhagirthibai v Kahnujirao 11 Bom. 285 (F. B.) at p. 810
   In Bai Narmada v Bhagawantrai 12 Bom. 505 (a Gujarat case) it was held that,
   where a woman got in gift from a stranger a house and also some money, her widowed
   daughter-in-law succeeded in preference to her deceased daughter's daughter. In Jankibai
   v Sundra 14 Bom 612 (a case from Ratnagiri where the Mit. is supreme) it was held after
   quoting this passage of the Mayūkha that it did not apply and that the daughter would
   succeed in preference to the son where a woman inherited certain property from her father.
   In Bai Raman v. Jagjiwandas 41 Bom. 618 the passage beginning with 'As for the
   dictum &c' is quoted (at p 623) and it is held that non-technical strīdhana descends
   under the Mayūkha to a son in priority to a deceased son's son.
2. The whole of the passage from this sentence to the verses of Manu (IX. 196--197) is
   quoted in Moosa Haji v Haji Abdul 30 Bom 197 at pp 201--202. 'When she dies without
   issue--' this means 'without daughters, daughter's daughters or sons, grandsons or
   great-grandsons', 'in the four forms' -eight forms of marriage were recognised by Manu III.
   21, Gautama IV 4--11, Kaut. p 151 and Baud Dh. S. I 11. 1-9. They are brāhma, daiva
   ārṣa, prājāpatya, āsura, gāndharva, rākṣasa and paiśāca. Manu (III.24) and Baudhāyana
   say that the first four are the approved forms for brāhmaṇas, while Gautama (IV. 12) says in
   general that the first four are approved ones.

• P. 161 (text),