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

196 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [S. IV 11 10-12 / M. p. 101 L 27 p. 102 L2
except the outcast boiled rice (i e food) and raiment are to be given.
'Liṅgī' (in Devala) means one who wears a forbidden sign. ¹ Baudhāyana
says (II. 2 38 41) 'They (coheirs) should support with food and clothes
those who are beyond (i e incapable of) transacting business and those
who are blind idiots, one impotent one addicted to vice, one afflicted with
disease and those that engage in prohibited actions except the patita and
his issue. ² Madana and others say that one who is an apostate from the
order of asceticism and his sons also are not to be maintained
The sons however of those excluded from a share (or inheritance)
if they are blameless (free from defect &c.) do get a share because
Viṣṇu (15. 84-88) says the aurasa (legitimate) sons of these alone
are entitled to take a share but the sons of the patita born after the
commission of the sinful act (which causes the bar of the exclusion) do
not (take a share) and so also those who are born of women of higher
caste (than their husbands) do not take a share nor do the sons (of
these latter) take a share even in the wealth of their paternal grandfather⁴
and because Yājñavalkya (II 141) says 'the aurasa (legitimate) and
kṣetraja sons of these if free from blame, are entitled to a share'⁵
*Yājñavalkya states (II. 141 142) a special rule concerning the daughters
and wives of these (excluded persons)

1. The Dāyabhāga and Vīr explain liṅgī as pravrajita (the sannyāsin) the
   explanation of Nīlakaṇṭha is supported by Medhātithi's comment on Manu IV 30.
2. The text of Baudhāyana is quoted in 1 Bom. 177 at p 183. Atītavyavahārān
   may also mean those who transgress the ordinary rules of conduct.
3. In Bapuji v Panduranga 6 Bom. 616 it is said at p. 621 Admittedly not one
   of the books referred to lays down anything with respect to the rights of inheritance of
   after-born qualified sons of excluded persons where an estate has already vested in a member
   of the family by right of survivorship. In Krishna v Sami 9 Mad. 64 (F. B.) it was
   held that the sons of a deaf and dumb member of an undivided Hindu family are entitled
   to a share in the lifetime of their father notwithstanding the fact that they were born
   after the death of their grandfather. Vide Laman v Krishnaji 21 Bom. L. R. 427 for
   the adopted son of a patita succeeding to his father's separate property though the adoption
   took place after the father became patita. Vide Paradesva v Venkatesh 31 Bom 4...
   4 The force of api in pitāmahasyarthe is as follows. The general rule is
   stated to be that the blameless sons of those excluded take a share. An exception to
   this is the son of a patita born after the man became patita and there is a further except-
   ion we saw above from Kātyāyana's text that the son of a pratiloma union does not
   inherit to his father the blameless son of the son of a pratiloma union would not succeed
   to the wealth of his grandfather i. e. of him who married a woman of a higher caste than
   his own.
4. The impotent particularly may have a kṣetraja son. Vide Manu IX. 203. The
   Mit. says that the express mention of aurasa and kṣetraja shows that other kinds of sons
   (of these excluded from inheritance) are not entitled to a share or to inherit. The Sm.
   C. says that as kṣetraja is forbidden in the Kali age the text of Yāj. applies only to the
   Dvāpara age.
   P 106 (text)