·No text on this page.

·VIVADACINTĀMAŅI AND ITS AUTHOR. By DR. UMESHA MISHRA, M.A., D.Litt., Allahabad University. INTRODUCTORY. The following pages embody a translation into English of one of the most important works of Vācaspati Mishrathe Junior, on Hindu Law, both Civil and Criminal, by an encyclopædic scholar who was a great teacher of the various schools of Indian Philosophy, and the greatest modern authority in all matters connected with Pūrva-Mimāmsā. The correct interpretation of Dharma-Shāstra treatises or law-digests is possible only with the help of Pūrva-Mimāmsā. Our studies in this field clearly indicate that a Dharmashästrin should necessarily be well versed in Pūrva-Mimāmsā and Nyāya-Vaisheşika. In fact, without a thorough knowledge of these two systems of thought no one has any right to speak on matters connected with Hindu Law. The principles of Pūrva-Mimāmsā are the only infallible guide for explaining the problems of Hindu Law. It is, therefore, in the fitness of things that the great savant of Pūrva-Mimāmsā had been entrusted with the task of translating this digest especially when we find that the misunderstanding of the correct interpretation of the Mīmāmsā principles is responsible for leading our lawyers into error. In Indian literature, the word Dharma-Shāstra is used for Hindu Law, It is, therefore, necessary that we should understand very clearly the meaning of the term 'Dharma'. From the various references of the term 'Dharma' in Vedic literature it is clear that it stands for 'Duty' in general. In later Sanskrit literature also, there is no better expression than 'Duty' to denote the correct connotation of the term-Dharma'. Thus, there is no activity of our life, whether physical, or mental, or spiritual, which cannot come within the jurisdiction of Dharma-Shastra'; and it is, therefore, that this branch of learning embraces all aspects of Hindu life. Hence, every action of our life, howsoever insignificant it may be, is looked upon from the point of Dharma-Shāstra. In other words, the works on Dharma-Shăstra or Hindu Law treat of life or society as one organic whole, and guide it in all its aspects. It is, therefore, that we find that our 'Law Books' deal with, more or less, homogeneous subjects, such as, Philosophy, Cosmology, Theology, Citizenship, Kingship. Each of these subjects is so vast that though in the older texts, namely, Manu, Yajñavalkya, etc., almost all the subjects have been more or less dealt with, yet with the expansion of society it became necessary to work out in detail all possible aspects of each of these subjects in order to meet with their growing demands. This is perhaps the reason which led the later scholars to concentrate their attention on, more or less, specialised work and write separate treatises of digests on the different aspects of our life and society. These various digests, although based on the old Smrtis, have superseded them in such a ·V111 INTRODUCTORY ; way that no one now cares to consult the old Smſtis on any point. In fact, people go even so far as to reject the authentic character of a particular Smộti text simply because it has not been quoted in the digests. Then, again, in a vast country like India, geographical conditions and climatic changes have had so many varying influences on the social, religious and economic life of her people that there exist differences not only in societies but also in the laws regulating those societies. This is perhaps the reason why our law books recommend certain practices for one part of the country while they prohibit the same for another. It was perhaps due to these natural influences, over which no one has any control, that both the Smrtikāras and the digest-writers recognised Sadācāra (Practices of good and cultured persons, that is, their Usages or Customs) prevalent in different parts and societies of the country as one of the authoritative Sources of Dharma- श्रुतिः स्मृतिः सदाचारः स्वस्य च प्रियमात्मनः। सम्यक् संकल्पजः कामो THE 498 11-Yājiavalkya, I. 7; 3ET: YHTE:--Manu, I. 108; Vashistha, VI. 1; CATÀ FATETETT: TAIT—Ibid., I. 4, etc. etc. They also emphasised the different traditional Customs and Usages prevalent amongst the different castes and families in addition to the above among the Sources of Dharma- देशधर्मान् जातिधर्मान् कुलधर्माश्च शाश्वतान्। पाषण्डगणधमांश्च शास्त्रेऽस्मिन्नुक्तवान् FT: 1.-Manu, I. 118; Uffh as JT ETT FART: a SFOUT:- Vashiştha, I. 8. Baudhāyana also holds the same view that the Shiştāgamathe practices of the cultured persons is the authoritative Source in determining the Dharma for a locality or a society next in importance to Shruti and Smrti (I. 4). This recognition of the different Customs practised by the cultured persons in different localities itself shows that there are bound to be differences in the laws regulating those societies; and it is, therefore, that we find that certain practices are approved of in certain parts of the country while they are looked upon with contempt and are regarded as sinful acts in other parts. Hence, it is not correct to say that differences in the practices of the various societies are of later origin. As these practices, due to several other reasons, came to be multiplied later on, differences also became intensified. This is responsible for widening the gulf between one society and the other in due course. This, it appears, infuenced the later digestwriters to differ widely amongst themselves in the interpretation of the old Smộtis which they quote in support of their statements. The nature of the Smrti texts, again, is such that different interpretations in several cases could easily be given. But one thing is clear, that howsoevor different the laws of one society or part of the country are from those of the other, it is a fact that the laws do not revolt against the ultimate principles of our life. The purification of body and sense-organs, including the internal ones as the means of the attainment of final emancipation (Mokşa) was never lost sight of. This is perhaps the reason why in spite of the various religious and social revolts against the traditional Hindu society, from time to time, the latter has still continued to flourish in some form or other, having ·INTRODUOTORY ix assimilated the congenial aspects of those movements as far as possible without injuring the spirit of the ultimate aim. Under the circumstances, it was but natural that in later times, different ideas came to be popular in different parts of the country; and one set of digests became, for no intrinsic reason, the authority' for certain parts of the country. This gave rise to the idea of there being several Schools of Hindu Law'. Thus, we find that the Mayükha came to be associated, more or less, with the Bombay Presidency; the works of Kamalākara and Mitra Mishra came to be recognised as being more authoritative in the Madhyadesha (Central India, and other adjoining parts of the country); the works of Jīmātavāhana and Raghunandana became the authorities for Bengal; Raņavīra-Ratnākara was regarded as authority for the Punjab; and the works of Lakşmidhara, Caņdeshwara and many others became authorities for Mithilā. Mithilā, the present north Bihar, by reason of its somewhat secluded position has been able to preserve a continuity in the evolution of Hindu culture, from very ancient times. The great Vedic Rșis, Yājñavalkya, Vashistha, Vishvāmitra, Gautama, Kapila, etc., made Mithilā their home and taught the eternal truth. The Shatapatha-Brāhmaṇa clearly tells us about the court of Janaka where Brāhmaṇas from different parts of the country used to throng. Byhadāranyaka, which is a part of the Shatapatha, abounds in the references to Yājñavalkya's philosophical discourses with Maitreyi and Gärgi. Later in the Epics and Purāņas also, we find that Mithilā maintained her position as a centre of great culture and ancient learning. In early Buddhist records there are evidences which easily support all that has been said above about Mithilă. Although no connected history of Mithilā is recorded during the earlier centuries of the Christian era, yet from literary evidences it is clear that though influenced by the very close contact of Buddhism, Mithilā succeeded in retaining intact the fundamental truths embodied in Hindu culture which she continued and still continues to represent. Of the two non-orthodox movements, Buddhism was much more powerful and wanted to throw out the very vital part of the Vedic civilisation ; and accordingly, attacked the performances of sacrificial rites and rituals and the Varnāshrama-Dharma. The Maithilas, who were a staunch orthodox people with the great ancient tradition behind them, could not tolerate the growing influence of Buddhism. They began to check its progress with the help of the traditional learning and reasonings. They also criticised the views set forth by the heterodox people by writing books. Mithilā gave up for the time being her Ādhyātmika pursuits for which she was once very famous, and concentrated her whole attention on the preservation of the ancient culture against Buddhism. As the Buddhistic attack was directed mainly against the sacrificial rites and rituals and the Varņāshrama- Dharma, the Maithilas began to write books in support of these two aspects of Vedic culture. This led to the production of the vast literature on Nyāya, Pūrva-Mimāmsā and Dharma-Shastra. As the opposition grew stronger and stronger, more and more efforts were made from time to time by Maithila scholars to criticise the Buddhist views and re-establish the ancient Vedic culture. There were great scholars on the ·M INTRODUCTORY Buddhist side who also began to reply to the criticisms levelled against them by the Maithila scholars, and wrote several standard works. This made the activities of the Maithila scholars still more intensive and they could easily preserve their own traditional civilisation. This religio-literary quarrel continued for several centuries, so that the Maithilas could retain their habit of literary pursuits and the link of the ancient civilisation, unaffected by any external forces. Another result of this was that even after the actual need of writing books against any heterodox religion had passed away the Shāstrika learning could continue to flourish in Mithila, and they did not give up their scholarly pursuits. This is perhaps the reason why the systems of Pūrva-Mīmāmsā and Nyāya came to be so widely studied in Mithilā. Although efforts were made in several other parts of the country to stop the influence of the non-orthodox culture by writing books and holding disputations, yet it appears that in Mithilā, where the clash was much more vigorous, the study of the Pūrva-Mímāmsā and Nyāya reached its very zenith. We find from the old records that during the reign of Rāni Vishwāsa Devi, the wife of Rājā Padma Singha, the younger brother of Rājā Shiva Singha, the patron of the poet Vidyāpati Thākura, at the beginning of the fifteenth century, there was a big gathering of the Panditas in Mithilā wherein some fourteen hundred Maithila Mīmāmsakas alone were invited. This is perhaps responsible for the fact that we find even to-day that there is hardly any other part of the country which singly has produced so many independent thinkers on Nyāya, Mīmāmsā and Dharma-Shāstra as Mithilā. We are thankful to the Buddhists for creating such an opportunity which perhaps otherwise would not have been possible. Thus, at the cost of the Adhyatmika pursuit of which also Mithilā was once a great centre, the Maithilas were able to take a great share in re-establishing the traditional Vedic culture once more in the country and establishing centres for the study of Mīmāmsā, Nyāya and Dharma-Shāstra. Such being the tradition of the past it is no wonder that Mithilā could produce a host of scholars like Lakşmīdhara, Graheshwara Mishra, Shrīdalta, Rudradhara, Candeshwara, Deveshwara, Ganeshwara, Vishweshwara Upadhyāya, Vardhamāna, Nyāyaratna Harinātha Upadhyāya and the authors of Smrtimahārnava, Shripati Samhitā, Chandogaparishista, Shrāddha-Pañjikā, Paribhāṣā, Smrtidarpana, etc. etc. Vācaspati Mishra and his family. In the land hallowed by such hoary traditions, was born Vācaspati Mishra, the second holder of the name. He was born in the well-known family of the Maithila Brāhmaṇas, called Palivāda-Samaula. Haladhara Mishra and Sose Mishra were his great-grandfather and grandfather respactively. He was the son of Giripati Mishra. The name of his son was perhaps Narahari, the author of a commentary on the Atmatattvaviveka of Udayanācārya; he writes at the beginning of this commentary सूक्त्या पितृचरणानामवगतसन्दर्भसारेण । क्रियते श्रीनरहरिणा व्याख्या बौद्धाधिकारस्य ।।

·INTRODUOTORY xi This Narahari should be distinguished from the author of the commentary on the Svarodaya; for in this commentary the author says that he belongs to the family of Mandara- श्रीमाण्डरशशिनेह (?) विदिते वंशे बुधालङ्कते, ख्याते श्रोत्रियमण्डलीषु महति स्वाचारचर्योज्ज्वले ।। etc.- Perhaps the names of the grandfather and father of this Narahari were Ganesha and Narasimha respectively- वेदव्याकरणागमादिनिकषो नैयायिकः सत्कविः ज्योतिःशास्त्रविकाशनकमिहिरो धीरो गणेशोऽभवत् । तस्यात्मजोऽभून्नरसिंहधीरो न्यायागमाद्यद्भतविद्य एकः । वेदस्मृतिज्योतिषशास्त्रसार- व्याख्यानशुद्धैकमतिर्द्विजेन्द्रः ॥ तस्यात्मजो नरहरिस्तत एव बुद्धया व्याख्यामिमां सकलशिष्यजनानुबन्धात्, etc.-स्वरोदयटीका. (Vide Dr. Rajendralal Mittra's MSS. Cat., No. 2001.) Then as regards the author of Dvaitanirnaya, the MSS. before me do not say anything about the father of the author Narahari. But the late MM. Pandit Parameshwara Jhã of Mithilā in his introduction to the Dvaitanirnaya says that this Narahari is different from the son of Vācaspati Mishra. We further know from the Maithila Pañjí that Vācaspati had two more brothers, named Shrīpati and Kānha. His grandson is the famous scholar MM. Keshava Mishra, the author of Dvaitaparishişta. Nothing more is known about his family history. It is believed that Vācaspati lived in the village called Sugauna, near Rajnagar (B.N.W.Rly. Station). In order to distinguish him from the great Vācaspati Mishra, the wellknown author of the Bhāmati and other philosophical treatises, this Vācaspati Mishra is called Abhinava. About his scholarship we know from his own works that he was well versed in Dharma-Shāstra, Nyāya and Purva- Mīmāmsā. In his Pitzbhaktitarangiņi he says- शास्त्रे दश स्मृतौ त्रिंशनिबन्धा येन यौवने । निर्मितास्तेन चरमे वयस्येष विनिर्ममे ।। that is, he who had written ten works on the Shāstras' and thirty works on 'Smrti' in his youth has composed. this work in his old age. By - Shastra' he means philosophical works. That he belonged to a family of the Karma-Mimāmsakas and that he was well versed in the Nyāya system is also clear from his own lines in the Kytyapradipa and the Shraddhakalpa where he says- वंशे जाते कलुषरहिते कर्ममीमांसकाना- मन्वीक्षायां गुरुकरुणया लब्धतत्त्वावबोधः । श्रीमान् वाचस्पतिरहमिह प्रीतये पुण्यभाजां नत्वा नत्वा कमलनयनं कृत्यदीपं तनोमि ॥ -Mithilā MSS. Catalogue, Vol. I, p. 67. .

·xii INTRODUCTORY This same verse with a very slight change in his Shrāddhakalpa in the fourth line, he reads-TFCT Frat af Te+ca - Ibid., p. 459. From the first verse of his commentary on the Tattvacintamani-Anumanakhanda it is clear that he had studied both the Nyāya and the Mimāmsā. He says- आराध्य यादवकिशोरमतिप्रयत्नात् अभ्यस्य गौतममतं संह जैमिनीयम् । सारं विविच्य मतयोरनयोरशेषं वाचस्पतिर्विशदये. .नुमार्गम् ॥ Catalogue Palm-leaf MSS. of Nepal. Vācaspati and his works. A brief note on each of these forty-one works, ten on Philosophy and thirty-one on Hindu Law, is given below:- Of the ten philosophical works we know of only a few:- 1. Nyāyatattvāloka.--This is a commentary of Gautama's Nyāya- Sūtras. It is unpublished, and a MS. of it dated 449 La. Sam. is in the State Library, Nepal. 2. Anumānakhandațīkā. This seems to be a commentary on the Anumāna-Khanda of the Tattvacintamani of Gangesha. It is also unpub. lished, and a palm-leaf MS. of it is in the State Library, Nepal. 3. Nyāyasūtroddhāra.--This is the second effort made in determining the number and correct version of the genuine Sūtras of Gautama on Nyāya, the first having been made by his predecessor Vācaspati Mishra, the Senior, in his Nyāyasūcinibandha. 4. Khandanoddhāra.—This is a sort of reply given to the criticisms of the great polemical writer Shrīharşa in his Khandanakhandakhādya against the dualistic arguments of the Nyāya-Vaisheşika. We know that similar efforts were made by others also, amongst whom the name of Shankara Mishra deserves mention. 5. Shabdanirnaya.—No MS. of this is yet found, but Vācaspati himself makes a reference to this work of his in his Dvaitanirnaya अनृत्विकत्वे दक्षिणादानं नास्त्येव ऋत्विगानतिद्वारा तस्य ऋत्वङ्गत्वादिति गुरुमतं तच्च शब्दनिर्णये विस्तरेण खण्डितमिति नेह तन्यते-p. 8. 6. A commentary on the Kāvyaprakāsha of Mammaţa, a reference to which is found in the commentary called Sudhāsāgara on the same by Dikşita Bhimasena. Another reference to this commentary by Vācaspati Mishra is found in the commentary on the Kavyaprakcāsha by Candi Dāsa. Other works on · Shästra ' are not yet known. Then on the Smộti the following are known to us so far: 1. Krtyacintärnani.--This has been published from Benares. It deals with the various important monthly rites and ceremonies to be performed during the whole of the year. Besides, it discusses other topics, like the Sankrānti, worship of the Shivalinga, Malamāsa, Birthday ceremonies, Shraddha in general, Yajñopavītadhāraña, Unusual phenomena, Ashauca, ·INTRODUCTORY Xiii Sankara, Varieties of marriage, Oaths and Ordeals, Purification of tanks, etc.:- (i) It is here that we find the mention of the fourteen kinds of vegetables which should be eaten on the Pretacaturdashi, that is, the fourteenth day of the dark half of Kārtika:- ओलं, केमुकं, वास्तुकं, सर्षपं, कालं, निम्बं, जया (जयन्ती), enfofsa, facufam, qetes, 4, 5, HOT®ît, and सुनिषण्णक (p. 33). If any one takes these he becomes free from Pretattva. (ü) According to him, as the time for taking the day-meal is noon, the Bhräts-Dvitāyā should be observed on that day on which the Dvitāyā falls about noon. (iii) By 'Parānna' one should understand all except the food of his guru, maternal uncle, father-in-law, father, and one's son. (iv) One should not use til-oil for rubbing on the body on Sundays, Tuesdays and Fridays, for if one does so then one's son dies, it causes one's own death and one loses wealth respectively. These are a few peculiarities which I could notice in this book. He quotes from the following old works: Kalpataru, Durgabhaktitarangiņi (by Vidyāpati Thākura ?), Kulārnava (Tantra ?), Shivarahasya, Baudhāyana, Rājamārtanda, Vätsyāyana, Bhojarāja, Smrtisāgara, Mundamālātantra, Rāmārcanacandrikā, Bhāsvati, Vyavahāramātīkā, and Kuthumi and Smrtisāra. Besides, his own works Shraddhacintāmaņi, Shuddhicintāmani and Dvaitacintamani are quoted here. He also refers to the views of Bhavadeva Bhatta. The word Krodawāra, meaning Saturday, a word of very rare use, is used here. 2. Shuddhicintāmani.- This has been printed at Benares, in Bengali script. It deals with the various kinds of purification in connection with the expiatory rites. Besides, it also discusses the purification of body, limbs, grains, metals, cooked food, water, earth, when they are polluted. It also tells us about those objects and persons who are by nature pure and do not require any external purification. A few notable points are given below:- (i) He refers to the suicidal act by falling down from the Vața tree at Prayāga and killing oneself as an act of merit and not an act of sin. (ü) Every detail of the expiatory rites is found here as is in actual practice even these days. (iii) The purification of ladies in general in every phase of their life is found here in detail. He quotes among others the following: Bhattāḥ, Prabhākarāh, and Acāryāh; Mitākṣarā, Hāralatā, Harihara, etc., Smrtidarpana, Chandogaparishişta, Prakāsha, Ratnākara, Smrtisāra, Pārijāta, Smrtikāra Vyāghrapāda, Smrtipradipa, Smrtisāgara, Kalpatarukāra, Aniruddha, Shuddhisära, Bhoja·xiv INTRODUCTORY Vijayin, Bhavadeva Bhatta, Sugatisopāna, Govindaraja, Rūpanārāyana, Smstisamuccaya, Shabdamahärnava by Vācaspati, Vishvakoşa, Navyāḥ, Pradāpa, and Kalpataru. Besides, he mentions his own Ähnikacintīmaņi which deals with the Vājasaneyins. In almost all his works he refers very often to the Brahmapurāna and it appears that most of the customs and daily usages of Maithilas are in agreement with this Purāna. This is quoted by him in his own Krtyacintā mani and by Raghunandana in his Shuddhi and Vivāna Tattvas. 3. Torthacintamani. This is published by the Asiatic Society of Bengal in the Bibliotheca Indica Series. It is based on Krtyakalpadruma, the Pārijäta, and the Ratnākara. It consists of mainly the five chapters called Prakasha on the five important places of pilgrimage, namely, Prayāga, Puruşottamakşetra including the Kyttivāsaḥkşetra, Koņārkakşetra and Virajakşetra, Gaya, Gangā and Vārāṇasī. Every ceremony connected with each of these in every aspect is dealt with here. A few notable facts are given below from this book:- (i) One who takes bath in the Ganges at Prayāga which has got three wells on the three sides of the river, namely, one in the Prayāga proper, second in the Pratişthāna-Nagara (modern Jhusi) and the third in the Alarka-Nagara on the south of the Yamunā, just after one has entered the Tirtha, casts off all sins. (ü) Death by keeping fasts, standing under the waters of the Ganges up to the navel, makes a man free from births and deaths. (üü) While dealing with Benares he says that there is an Idol (linga) of Avimukteshwara which is known as Vishwanātha in the world, which has been consecrated by the Lord Shiva Himself in this place which is called Avimuktakşetra and also Shmashănakşetra. That place itself is known as the Kukkutamandapa and one who enters that Mandapa from the southern gate never comes back to this world again. South of this Mandapa where the Idol is consecrated there is a well called the Vijñānavāpī as it brings true knowledge to those who drink water from this well. The most interesting point regarding this is that according to Vācaspati Mishra the temple of the Lord Vishwanātha is situated on the north of the Vijitānavāpi. We know from history that under the instructions of some Mahomedan ruler the old temple of Vishwanātha, which was really on the north of the well, was demolished and that the new temple which now exists came to be constructed to the south of the well; and the reconsecration ceremony of the idol was done by Nārāyana Bhatta II in the middle of the fifteenth century. Some of the more important works and writers mentioned or quoted in this book are Ganeshwara Mishra, Kalpatarukāra, Jaya Sharma, and Krtyakalpadruma, Pārijāta, Ratnākara, Smytisamuccaya, Kalpataru, etc. This book has been quoted by Canapati in his Gangābhaktitarangiņi, and by Raghunandana in his several Tattvas.

·INTRODUCTORY XV 4. Gaya-Shraddha-Paddhati.--It is printed at Bombay. The Mangala verse of this book is the same as that of the Tirthacintămani-Gayāvidhi. But these are two independent works and differ widely from each other. A reference to Jaya Sharmā is also found in this book. 5. Dvaitanirnaya.--This book is also published. It deals with several disputed points of the Dharma-Shāstra and is regarded as authoritative in Mithilā. It is quoted by Ganapati in his Gangābhaktitarangiņā, by Raghunandana and by Govindānanda. Its importance is clear from the fact that Gokulanātha Upadhyāya has written a commentary, called Pradīpa, upon this work and Madhusūdana Thakura has written another commentary, named Dvaitanirnaya-Jirnoddhāra, upon the same. That this book was written by the order of Răni Jaya Devi, wife of Bhairavadeva and mother of Puruşottamadeva, is evident from the introductory verses :- विष्णोर्व्यक्तः पुरमिव शम्भोरिव देहवामार्धम् । देवीसनाभिरेषा जयति जयात्मा महादेवी ।। श्रीभैरवेन्द्रधरणीपतिधर्मपत्नी राजाधिराजपुरुषोत्तमदेवमाता। वाचस्पतिं निखिलतन्त्रविदं नियुज्य da farrurufafa faferetratar al Some interesting and notable points are given below:- (i) There are four kinds of reservoir of water: (a) Kúpa (well) where there is no way to enter into; (6) Vāpin that reservoir of water where there are steps to enter into; (c) Puşkariņi is of the measure of 100 dhanvantaras-one dhanvantara is equal to four cubits in length; and (d) Tadāga is equal to five times the Puşkariņi. (ü) While offering libations to one's deceased ancestors (tarpana), the Pradipa says, that we should say— Pitā trpyatām', but the Kalpataru is of opinion that we should add the word "Asmat' to the above, which the Pārijāta, on the other hand, rejects. Vācaspati, however, agrees with the Kalpataru. So says the Candra (Misarū Mishra) also. (iii) He disagrees with Harihara as regards the giving of oblations to the Bhūtas (Bhūtabali), who holds that five separate oblations are to be offered to with the five mantras respectively. He agrees with Shrīdatta and Vardhamana. (iv) In one place he says- मैथिलास्तु शतपथादर्शिनः पितृभक्तिप्रामाण्याभिमानिनो यजुर्विदोऽपि उपवीतिनोऽत्र भवन्ति (p. 82). (v) If a Shraddha is performed in the Malamāsa, then the following acts should not be done as they are Kämya: Giving away of bedding, Kancana-Puruşa, Kapila-Gavi, umbrella and shoes; the worship of Dampati and the Vrootsarga. ..

·xvi INTRODUCTORY own are: (vi) Regarding the practice of the Kartā-Putra he says: in every Shrāddha the Kytrima-Putra uses the expression HyFlane, but this usage is neither ārşa nor used in any digest, but has been used by the later Maithilas; and as it gives the sense in a connected form, the cultured Maithilas also have approved of its use which is deplorable. (vii) The father should not perform the ābhyudayika for the second marriage of his son, for it is done as part of the Samskāra which is complete with the first marriage. He quotes the following works and authors: Prābhākarāḥ, Shatapatha, Bhavadeva-Phakkikā, Vasişthasamhitā, Trailokyasāra, Cūrnikā, Kāmadhenu, Ratnākara, Pradipa, Kalpataru, Pārijāta, Candra, Gurumata, Bhattamata, Shridattāhnika, Vardhamānähnika, Chandogaparishişta, Prakāshavyākhyā, Smrtisāra, Samayapradīpa, Shrāddhaviveka, Parishiştatīkā, Pitrbhaktiḥ, Shraddhapradipa, Chandogasopāna, Vişnusūtra, Paribhāṣā, Hariharapaddhati, Gosavapaddhati, Shraddha-Panjikā, Shrāddha-Pārijāta, Shrāddha-Pallava, Acara-Candra, Mahādānanirnaya, Dānaratnākara, Daivajñabāndhava, Shripatisamhitā, and Ratnāvalī by Mahāmahopādhyāya Sudhākara. He also quotes his works-Shraddhakalpa, Shraddhacintāmani, and Mahādānanirnaya. The authors quoted Bhavadeva, Shridatta Upādhyāya, Rūpanārāyana, Bhūpāla, Nyāyaratna Harinātha Upadhyāya, Shankarācārya, Bhāskarācārya, Harihara, Vasudeva, Halāyudha, Laksmīdhara, Rājā, Pratihastaka, Karkopādhyāya, Gauri the author of Shraddhacintāmani, Asahāya, Udayakara, and Sudhālcara. He speaks very highly of Kalpataru and Pradipa. Throughout his works Vācaspati shows his wide knowledge of Nyäys and Mīmāmsā. He actually quotes several Sūtras from the Nyāya-Sūtra. 6. Sārasangraha.--The opening verse is-- शिवं नत्वा स्मृतेस्तत्त्वे क्रियते सारसङ्गहः । श्रीवाचस्पतिधीरेण वैधकृत्यप्रवृत्तये ।। Vide Dr. R. L. Mittra's Cat. of Sanskrit MSS., No. 272. 7. Shūdrācāracintamani.-It deals with the duties and customs of a Shūdra. The book is unpublished. Later on, Kamalakara also wrote a similar work, named Shūdrakamalākara. The opening verse of this work is तीक्ष्णत्विषे नमस्कृत्य श्रीवाचस्पतिशमणा । धर्मशास्त्रं समालोक्य शूद्राचारो वितन्यते ॥ From the colophon of this MS. it is clear that Vācaspati Mishra was a court Pandita (Parişad) and that he was recognised as the leading Pandita of the court. 8. Mahādānanirnaya.-The book is not published. There is a MS. of this work in the State Library of Nepal which is dated La. Sam. 392, that is, 1511 A.D. It is said in the opening verse that the Maithila Rājā Bhairavendra with the help of Vācaspati wrote this work- ·INTRODUCTORY xyii श्रीवाचस्पतिधीरं सहकारितया समासाद्य । श्रीभैरवेन्द्रनृपतिः स्वयं महादाननिर्णयं तनुते ।। It deals with the sixteen great gifts. 9. Chatrayogodbhūtadoşashāntividhiḥ.-The opening verse says that the work was written at the instance of one Sāna Bahadura. We do not know anything more than this about this work. The opening verse runs as follows: श्रीमत्साहबहादुरस्य तनुते श्रीछत्रयोगोद्भवम् । प्राप्याज्ञां सुविधिं सुनिर्मलमतिः श्रीमिश्रवाचस्पतिः ।। There is another verse also which gives us some idea about the date of this work- श्रीशाके शरपुष्करावनिधरप्रालेयराचिर्मिते तिग्मांशौ वृषराशिगे मकरगे जीवे तपर्ती शुचौ । शुक्ले ब्रह्मतिथौ शिवर्तविलसद्गौरांशुवारेऽकरोत् तन्त्रादीनवलोक्य पद्धतिमिमां श्रीमिश्रवाचस्पतिः ।। 10. Shraddhavidhi.-It deals with the expiatory rites, etc. It is different from his another work on the similar subject. Its opening verse runs as follows:- प्रणम्य परमात्मानं विचार्याचार्यसंहिताः । श्रीवाचस्पतिमिश्रेण श्राद्धस्य विधिरुच्यते ॥ 11. Tithinirnaya.--It discusses the doubtful points regarding the observance of tithi. Its opening verse is :- विलोक्य मुनिवाक्यानि सम्प्रदायानुसारतः । तिथिद्वैतविधौ यत्नात् क्रियते तिथिनिर्णयः ॥ The authenticity of this work is doubtful for two reasons-one that the opening verse, as given above, does not contain the name of Vācaspati as in other works, and the second point is that this very verse with a very slight difference is found in the beginning of the Tithinirnaya by Shubhankara Thākura (vide Mithila MSS Cat., Vol. I, p. 161). 12. Ācāracintāmaņi.-It deals, as the very name suggests, with the daily duties of the Vājasaneyins, as is clear from his own verse in the beginning of the work: अहोरात्राश्रिताचार इह वाजसनेयिनाम् । निबध्यते हरिं नत्वा श्रीवाचस्पतिशम्र्मणा ।। -Mithilā MSS. Cat., Vol. I, p. 17. It is quoted by Raghunandana Bhattācārya in his Tattvas. It is still unpublished. 13. Ahnikacintamani-It also appears to be a book on the daily duties of the Brāhmaṇas of the Kātīya school. No MS. of this work is yet found but that Vācaspati wrote this work is clear from his own reference to it in his Shuddhicintamani (आह्निकचिन्तामणौ कातीयस्नानेऽध्यवसेयाः--p. 90). Raghunandana also quotes this work in his Ekādashi and Āhnika Tattvas. .- ·xviii INTRODU OTORY 14. Dvaitacintamani. We have not seen as yet any MS. of this. He himself refers to this work in his Kịtyacintāmani (9f5aatha kafarauit इत्येतदनुसन्धातव्यम्-p. 53). 15. Nīticintāmaņi.-No MS. of this work also is found as yet. He himself refers to this book in his Vivādacintāmaņi (staci #4T Alfafaralhot-p. 112). 16. Vyavahāracintamani. It is a legal work dealing with evidences, etc. in four sections: (i) bhāşă-meaning plaint; (ii) uttara-meaning written statement by way of reply; (iii) kriya—meaning procedure; and (iv) nirnaya -meaning decision by the Court. As he himself says भाषोत्तरक्रियावादा निर्णयस्सोपदेशकः । चतुष्पात्तत्त्वविषयो व्यवहारो निरूप्यते ॥ (Vide Mithilā MSS. Cat., Vol. I, p. 392.) According to Rai M. M. Chakravarti Bahādura, the book quotes the following: Kalpataru, Pārijāta, Bhavadeva, Mitākṣarā, Ratnākara, Rājā, Lakşmīdhara, Viveka, Pradāpa, Smrtisamuccaya, and Halāyudha. 17. Vivādanirnaya. It also appears to be a legal book. There is a MS. of it in the State Library, Nepal (MSS. Notices, p. 90). 18. Shuddhinirnaya.—This is again a separate book. It deals with the purification of various types. It is also unpublished. There are several MSS. of this work available in Mithilā (vide Cat. of Mithilā MSS., Vol. I, pp. 430-31). The opening verse is प्रणम्य परमात्मानं श्रीवाचस्पतिशमणा। आलोक्य मुनिवाक्यानि शुद्धिनिर्णय उच्यते ॥ 19. Candanadhenu-pramāna.-According to Rai Bahādur Chakravarti this book discusses the Smrti texts for substituting sandal-paste marks instead of burnt marks on the bull dedicated at the time of Shraddha. It quotes Karmopadeshini, Ratnākara, Brāhmanasarvasva, and Halāyudha (vide Dr. R. L. Mittra's Notices, IX, p. 236, No. 3154, Folio 6). 20. Dattakavidhi or Dattaka-putrești-yäga-vidhi.-Herein he discusses the procedure of the adoption of a son (vide H. Shastri, Notices of Sanskrit MSS., III, p. 90, No. 139). 21. Kytyapradāpa. It is a treatise dealing with the daily duties from getting up from the bed to the going back to the bed at night. It also deals with the Abhyudayika, etc. There are several MSS. of this work in Mithilā. The opening verse is important as it helps us to prove the identity between the Dārshanika Vācaspati and the Dharmashästrī Vācaspati. The verse runs as follows: वंशे जातः कलुषरहिते कर्ममीमांसकाना- मन्वीक्षायां गुरुकरुणया लब्धतत्त्वावबोधः । श्रीमान् वाचस्पतिरहमिह प्रीतये पुण्यभाजां नत्वा नत्वा कमलनयनं कृत्यदीपं तनोमि । (Vide Cat. of Mithila MSS., Vol. I, pp. 67–69, Nos. 75-A-E.)

·INTRODUCTORY xix 22. Gayāpattalaka. It treats of the ceremonies which are to be performed when one visits Gayā for Shraddha. It is different from another work on the same subject noticed above (vide Cat. of the Mithilā MSS., Vol. I, pp. 93-94, Nos. 93-95). 23. Tirthakalpalatā.-This appears to be a separate work. The Mangala verse is also different from that of the Tērthacintamani. It runs as follows: हिताय साधुवृत्तानां वेदवृक्षानुगामिनाम् । तीर्थे कल्पलता नत्वा श्रीवाचस्पतिशम्र्मभिः ।। Here he seems to discuss the Tērthayātrā~its merits in general (vide Cat. of the Mithila MSS., Vol. I, p. 181, No. 166). This book is also named Tirthayātrāvidhi (vide ibid., pp. 184-185). 24. Shraddhakalpa.- This is again different from his Shraddhacintamani. The work is unpublished and there are several MSS. of this in Mithilā. It deals with such duties also as Sandhyā, Tarpana, Nityashraddha, Nāndimukha, He quotes amongst others-Shridatta Upādhyāya, Garga, Bhojarāja, Bhujabalabhima, Shatānanda, Acärädarsha, Gunisarvasva, Rājamārtandadīpikā, Ratnamālā, Ratnāvalī, Ratnasāra, Rājādinibandha and also Bādarāyana. The opening verse is the same as quoted above supporting the identity between the Därshanika Vācaspati and the Dharmashāstrī Vācaspati:- वंशे जातः कलुषरहिते कर्ममीमांसकानां etc. (Vide Mithilā MSS. Cat., Vol. I, pp. 458-59.) MM. P. V. Kane says that the Shrāddhakalpa is another name of the Pitrbhaktitarangiņā. But from the opening verses as given above it does not appear to be so. 25. Tīrthalatā.-This also appears to be different from his Tīrthacintāmani. It deals with ceremonies to be performed at Käshi, Prayaga, and other places of pilgrimage. There is only one MS. of it so far traced in the Raj Library, Darbhanga (vide Cat. of Mithila MSS., Vol. I, p. 185, No. 169). 26. Pitſbhaktitarangiņi.-This is the work which Vācaspati wrote in his old age and this is his 3 Ist work as he has himself said towards the end of this very book- शास्त्रे दश स्मृतौ त्रिंशनिबन्धा येन यौवने । ACHAT 75 qerta fari(Verse 3) (at the end of the last section but one). This work also deals with the expiatory rites, etc. Its opening verse is- प्रणम्य वासुदेवाय तन्यते स्वर्गरङ्गिणी। stareeqfaattor fuafifçrunt il This is also unpublished. There are several MSS. of it available in Mithilā (vide Cat. of Mithilā MSS., Vol. I, pp. 283–285). 27. Kętyamahārnava.--Like the Mahādānanirnaya this book was also written by Vācaspati, but it is associated with the name of his patron, Mithilesha Harinārāyana, and it is therefore that sometimes it is said to be the work of Harinārāyana also. In the MS. it is said that there were seven ·xx INTRODUCTORY Mahārnavas-Krtya, Acāra, Vivāda, Vyavahāra, Dāna, Shuddhi, and Pitryajña, of which this is the first. Some of the notable points are: (i) He enumerates the following 36 Smrtileāras whose works alone are reliable:- मनु, विष्णु, यम, दक्ष, अंगिरा, अत्रि, बृहस्पति, उशना, आपस्तम्ब, वशिष्ठ, कात्यायन, पराशर, व्यास, शंख-लिखित, सम्वत, गौतम, शातातप, हारीत, याज्ञवल्क्य, प्रचेतस्, देवल, लोमश, जमदग्नि, प्रजापति, विश्वामित्र, पैठीनसि, पितामह, बौधायन, छागलेय, जावालि, च्यवन, मरीचि, कश्यप, नारद and दक्ष । (ii) He uses the term Tarka for Mīmāmsā and he quotes Bhatta in his support (p. 2a). (iii) The eight Nāgas are- वासुकि, तक्षक, कालिय, सालभद्र, ऐरावत, धृतराष्ट्र, कर्कोटक and धनञ्जय. (iv) One should not eat the white class of vegetable called Shimba (sema) in the month of Kārtika (57a). (v) He enumerates the seven objects constituting what is called sarvagandham कस्तूरिकाया द्वौ भागौ चत्वारः कुंकुमस्य च । षोडशश्चन्दनस्यैव कर्पूरस्य चतुष्टयम् ॥ He quotes amongst others the following: - भट्ट, कल्पतरु, काश्मीराः, कालविवेक, समयप्रदीप, गौडाः, राजमार्तण्ड, गांगेयाख्य ज्योतिर्निबन्ध, प्रतिहस्तक, छन्दोगपरिशिष्ट, अनन्तभट्ट, स्मृतिसार, रत्नाकर, श्रीपति- संहिता; नन्दिपुराण, श्राद्धविवेककारादयः, विश्वरूपनिबन्ध, भोजराज, दानसागर, गन्धशास्त्र, वाक्यकरण्डिका, आचारचन्द्र, कालादर्श, कृत्यकल्पलता, भीमपराक्रम, परिभाषा, श्रीदत्त, सिद्धान्तमणि, etc. etc. 28. Vivādacintāmaņi.--This is one of the most important works on Hindu Law. It has been published both from Bengal and Bombay. It was first translated into English by the late Prasannakumara. Tagore in 1863. Its importance can be assessed from what MM. P. V. Kane, in his History of Dharmashāstra, says-Vivādacintamani has been recognised by the High Courts in India and by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as a work of paramount authority on matters of Hindu Law in Mithila' (p. 399). It deals with the eighteen titles of law (vyavahārapadas), namely; (i) Non-payment of debt (ऋणादान), (ii) Deposits (निक्षेप), (iii) Selling without ownership (अस्वामिविक्रय), (iv) Joint Concerns (सम्भूय समुत्थान), (v) Non-delivery of what has been given away (दत्ताप्रदानिक), (vi) Nonpayment of wages (वेतनस्य अदानम्), (vi) Breach of contract (संविद् व्यतिक्रम), (viii) Rescission of sale and purchase (क्रयविक्रयानुशय), (ix) Dispute between :- , . . .

·INTRODUCTORY xxi 7 7 the owner and the keeper (faale: F91f4470ut:), (x) Disputes regarding boundaries (fanfaare), (xi) Assault-verbal (779447007), (xii) Assault physical (que41604), (xiii) Theft (eta), (xiv) Violence (साहस), (XV) Adultery (FPHUET), (xvi) Duties of man and wife (paidat:) (xvii) Partition (fahrt:), and (xviii) Gambling and betting (3767:) as described in the Manusmrti (Chapter XVIII). Certain notable facts picked up from the book are:- (i) The Smrti principles regulating the 'Case' (vyavahāra) are based on reason and not on Shruti- न्यायमूला हि व्यवहारस्मृतयः न तु श्रुतिमूलाः (p. 59). (ü) There are two sorts of thieves-one visible, such as a merchant or a trader or a shopkeeper, and the other invisible, namely, those who make openings in one's house, etc. (ü) He says that no part or a quantity of pure gold will be lost even if it is heated for the whole day and night. This is the old view of the Naiyāyikas according to whom gold is a taijasa substance. In support of the above view he also quotes याज्ञवल्क्य-'अग्नौ सुवर्णमक्षीणम्' (2496779114, verse 178). (iv) He notes that if one hundred Pala of silver is heated then only two Palas will be lost; and in the case of 100 Palas of glass if heated, only 8 Palas will be lost; in the case of 100 Palas of copper only 5 Palas will be lost; and if a goldsmith or other trader says that more than what is said above is lost, he should be punished for stealing. (v) The present ceremony known as the Dvirāgamana amongst the Maithilas is referred to in this book. He also refers to the custom of giving some presents to a newly married bride at the time of bowing down to her father-in-law or mother-in-law or to other elders at the time of her first arrival from her father's house. He quotes amongst others the following: Halāyudha, Narada, Grhastharatnākara, Pārijāta, Ratnākara, Smrtisāra, Kalpataru, Hārīta, Vyāsa, Yājñavalkya, Vişnu, Kātyāyana, Lakşmīdhara, Prakasha, Mitākşarā, Prakashakāra, Balarūpa, and Medhätithi. Besides, he refers to his own works Niticintāmani and Shraddhacintāmani. In the very beginning the author says that he had consulted the Krtyakalpadruma, Pārijāta, Ratnākara and others before he began this work. In one place (p. 2, Bombay ed.) he says न्यायचतुर्थाध्याये व्यक्तम्- This refers to Nyāya-Sūtra of Gautama, IV. i. 59-60, where it is argued that the duties of man are called 'Debts' in the sense that it is necessary to perform them. So the Bhāşya makes it clear that the term Debt used here is not in its direct primary sense.

·xxii INTRODUCTORY By the way, Vācaspati, in order to clarify the meaning of certain Sanskrit termas, has given their equivalents from his own mother-tongue, Maithili. For instance, 3TETT(AT) for profft (Skt.) 'ends of roof' (p. 97); गोन्दतल (Maithili) for व्युत्कर or अवकर (Skt.) 'rubbish' (p. 99); कोटवार elaars (Maithili) for Trata: 'officer-in-charge of the town' (p. 147); 75 (Bombay ed.), #7277 (Bengal ed. referred to by Mr. Kane, p. 400, H. of Dha.) for *4: (Skt.), p. 157, meaning 'a contrivance by which men cross over waterways' as explained by Medhātithi; saggrefT for at, meaning 'musk-rat' (p. 165); greit or aaret for 37ag, meaning 'mules' (p. 108). Besides, there are certain expressions in Sanskrit which look like words of Maithili; for instance, the term वण्टनीयं in एवञ्च पितणं परिशोध्य पश्चाच्छेषं queritafieret: (p. 210) looks like the Maithili aica; at least the root appears to be the same in both. बन्धकीकृतः or बन्धक is the same as बन्धक, in Maithilī, meaning a kind of deposit. He refers to the 7708HTTs, meaning a measure for measuring rice, etc. This refers to the practice of keeping measures made of either wood or bamboo, called in Maithili aist or art or hast, etc. for measuring rice, etc. There are certain Sanskrit words of very rare use, namely, 759 for दासी (p. '70); शलाकी for नापित (p. 82)-can this expression be due to the fact that these barbers were accustomed to use probe, a kind of surgical instrument (shalākā) for petty surgical purposes in olden times ? He uses the word उद्धृत or उद्धार (Maithili उधार) in the sense of credit' or 'loan' (p. 2). He refers to six kinds of interest to be taken by the money-lender: (i) Annual (+1f44T), (ü) Monthly (feat), (ii) Double interest (Tere), (iv) Daily (faretqfæ), (v) torfat -3979f& Fallanat, any interest accepted under the pressure of some calamity, and (vi) TIETT:-Tata IT: I These are the works which are known to us at present. 6 Vacaspati's place amongst the digest-writers. It is admitted by all that Vācaspati was a versatile scholar. Perhaps he wrote the largest number of law-digests dealing with almost every aspect of the Dharma-Shāstra. We know that there were several predecessors of his who also wrote several standard works on Hindu Law. But we do not know that any one of them also could equally produce any work on the Darshana-Shāstra. Vācaspati, on the other hand, is a recognised author of no less than ten standard works on Darshana. In this respect I think excopt one or two there are not many other instances even in Mithilā. It was perhaps due to this very fact that they say-शङ्करवाचस्पत्योः सदृशौ शङ्करवाचस्पती एव. Vācaspati Mishra, the Senior, to whom a reference is made in the above line, was undoubtedly one of the greatest scholars that India has produced.

·INTRODUCTORY xxiii came He is known to have written commentaries on all the six orthodox and six heterodox systems of philosophical thought, but we do not know so far if he ever wrote any work on the Dharmashāstra. But even so both are recognised as great versatile scholars of Mithilā. The above line also refers to Shankara Mishra, son of Bhavanātha Mishra and Vācaspati Mishra, the Junior. Vācaspati's views soon to be recognised as authoritative in different parts of the country. We are aware that Raghunandana Bhatācārya and Govindānanda of Bengal have freely quoted Vācaspati and his works in their own law-digests. Nanda-Pandit refers to the Shrāddhacintāmani and Vācaspati by name in his Shrāddhakalpalatā and Dattakamēmāmsă respectively. Mitra Mishra quotes him in his well-known Viramitrodaya. Kamalākara Bhatta also refers to Vācaspati and to his Shuddhicintāmani in his Nirnayasindhu (pp. 183, 204) and so on. Vācaspati's name and fame thus spread over other parts of the country also. It has been already pointed out above that his Vivādacintāmani is recognised by the Law Courts as a work of paramount authority on matters of Hindu Law in Mithila (vide P. V. Kane, History of Dharmashästra, p. 399). Even at present we find that his views are quoted by great Maithila scholars with respect on matters of Dharma-Shāstra in Mithilā and elsewhere. Such is the position which Vācaspati Mishra II occupies amongst the digest-writers. But it would not be out of place to say that even then it would not be quite correct to say, like MM. Kane, that he is the foremost nibandha-writer of Mithilā' (Hist. of Dharma., p. 399), for there have been several far superior and authoritative writers amongst the Maithilas, to name a few, Lakşmidhara, Candeshwara, Rudradhara, Shrīdatta, Harinātha, etc., whom Vācaspati himself quotes with great respect. Amongst Vācaspati's own contemporaries we may mention the names of Misarū Mishra who was the Court Pandita of Candra Simha, the brother of Bhairava Simha, the patron of Vācaspati; Indrapati; Premanidhi; Lakşmipati; Shankara Mishra, the well-known author of Vaisheşika- Upaskāra, who have been famous writers in Mithila. Date of Vācaspati. For determining the date of Vācaspati we have the following information from his own works: (i) In Nyāya-sūtroddhāra he speaks himself as Mithileshwara-sūri. (ii) In the colophon of his Shūdrācāracintāmaņi he says-Maharājādhiraja-Shrīmaddharinārāyana-Parişad, a Court Pandita of the Mahārāja Harinārāyaṇa which was another name of Bhairava Simha. (üi) In the Pitrbhaktitarangiņā towards the end he calls himself the Court Pandita of Rāmabhadradeva who was the son of Bhairava Simha. (iv) Vardhamāna Upādhyāya, the son of Bhavesha of the Vilva-Pañcaka family, the author of the Dandaviveka, calls Vācaspati his guru, This Vardhamana also had both Bhairava Simha and his son Rāmabhadradeva as his patrons (vide Dandaviveka and Ganga- ·Xxiv INTRODUCTORY krtyaviveka respectively). A MS. of his Gangākştyaviveka is found which is dated La. Sam. 376, Paușa Vadi 13 budhe. That is, Vardhamāna must have lived before La. Sam. 376 or 1495-96. On the basis of these facts, we may say that Vācaspati II also must have lived before 1495. According to the history of Mithilā kings, Bhairava Simha had succeeded his elder brother Dhira Simha on the Mithila throne. Dhira Simha was ruling over Mithilā in about La. Sam. 321, that is, 1440 A.D., when a MS. of the Setudarpaņā, a commentary on the Setubandha, the Prakrit poem, was transcribed (परमभट्टारकेत्यादि-महाराजाधिराज-श्रीमल्लक्ष्मणसेनदेवीयैकविंशत्यधिकशतत्रयतमाके (ब्दे? ) कार्त्तिकामावास्यायां शनौ समस्तप्रक्रियाविराजमानरिपुराजकंसनारायणशिवभक्ति- परायण-महाराजाधिराज-श्रीश्रीमद्वीरसिंहसंभुज्यमानायां तीरभुक्तौ अलापुरतप्पाप्रतिबन्ध- सुन्दरीग्रामे वसता सदुपाध्यायश्रीसुधाकराणामात्मजेन छात्रश्रीरत्नेश्वरेण स्वार्थ परार्थ च लिखितमिदं सेतुदर्पणीपुस्तकमिति) (Vide History of Tirhut, p. 74.) So Bhairava Simha must have ruled after 1440. In other words, Bhairava Simha must have ruled between 1440 and 1495. Bhairava Simha was succeeded by his son Rāmabhadradeva who was a ruler of Mithilā about 1495-96. As Vācaspati lived at the courts of both these kings, he should be naturally placed about the same period. From the long list of his works it is also assumed that he must have lived, like Vidyāpati Thakura one of his contemporaries, a very long life. Therefore, he may be easily placed in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. Vācaspati's religious beliefs. Regarding the religious faith which Vācaspati had, it may be pointed out that in the Mangala verse of most of his works he praises Lord Krşņa or Vişņu or Hari and in some he also bows down to Shiva. But this matters very little with the Maithila writers. They are naturally worshippers of Shakti and at the same time they also worship Vişnu and Shiva. This peculiar harmonic combination of the Trinity is the natural faith of all Maithilas. They realise unity amidst diversity and there is never any misunderstanding in their mind about the real nature of these. Hence, no purpose can be served by questions regarding the religious faith of any Maithila scholar. There is & wrong notion amongst a few Maithilas that there were three Vācaspati Mishras in Mithilā. In fact, there have been only two-the first is the author of the Bhāmatē, etc. who is known as the Vrddha Vācaspati, and the other is Vācaspati, the author of the above-mentioned Dharma- Shāstra works, who is therefore known as the Abhinava. The cause of misunderstanding appears to be that they do not know that the Dharmashāstrī Vācaspati is identical with the Dārshanika one. They take them to be different persons. It has been shown above on the basis of the verses found in his Kytyapradīpa, Shrāddhakalpa, and Anumānakhandatākā that the Dharmashāstrī Vācaspati is identical with the Dārshanika Vācaspati.

·INTRODTOTORY XXY The English translation of this work was finished by Dr. Jha in December, 1936, but unfortunately the whole translation could not be seen through the Press during his lifetime. He himself could only see the proofs up to page 224. For his translation Dr. Jha had used both the printed text and the MSS. of the Vivādacintāmaņi. Thus: (1) For the printed text, which he indicates as Pa, he has used the 'Shri Venkateshwara Press', Bombay, Samvat, 1955, A.C. 1898, edition. (2) Another printed edition which he has indicated as Pb is an old edition. (3) Ma-Paper manuscript, leaves 39, complete, Maithili script, fairly correct; about 100 to 150 years old-belonging to the writer. (4) Mb-Paper manuscript, incomplete, leaves 23 extending to about p. 79 of the edition Pa, Maithilī script, belonging to Dr. Jha himself. Although in the Sanskrit editions the texts have not been numbered, yet they have been numbered here only for purposes of references and criticisms. For the notes he has mostly utilised his own book~Hindu Law in its Sources', Vol. II. I consider it to be a great honour that the great master asked me to write out an Introduction for this translation. I did it as he had desired and handed over the Introduction to him while he was in good health, and I was fortunate enough to learn from him that the Introduction met with his approval.

·No text on this page.

·TABLE OF CONTENTS Page vii xxvii remont ܢܝܕ .. 2 3 9 11 17 22 25 40 45 Introduction Table of Contents Introductory Part (A)-Benedictory Part (B)-Enumeration of Subjects. Heads of Disputes Chapter Im Law of Debt Part (A)General Part (B)-Interest Part (C)-Unstipulated Interest Part (D)-The Maximum Interest allowed Part (E)-Pledge Part (F)-Surety Part (G)-The Manner of repaying Debts Chapter II- On Deposits Chapter III- Sale without Ownership .. Chapter IV- Joint Concerns .. Chapter 1- Resumption of Gifts Chapter VI- Law relating to Servants Section (A)-Kinds of Servant Section (B)-Rules relating to Slavery Section (0)—Non-payment of Wages .. Section (D)-Rules relating to Professional Women Chapter VII- Rules relating to the Owner and Keeper of Cattle Chapter VIII- Breach of Customs and Conventions Chapter IX- Rescission of Sale Chapter X Boundary Disputes (I) Cultivated and Uncultivated Lands (2) Protection of Orops .. 49 57 . 67 67 73 75 78 81 . 84 88 . 94 100 101 ·xxviii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 106 110 118 125 132 134 136 148 150 153 159 163 165 Chapter XI- Verbal Assault (Abuse and Defamation).. Chapter XII- Assault and Hurt Chapter XIII- Theft and Robbery (1) Secret Thieves (2) Semi-Thieves (3) Exceptions to Theft Chapter XIV- 'Sahasa'-Acts of Violence-Crimes (1) Detection of Criminals Chapter XV- Adultery (1) Sexual Intercourse-Rape (2) Other Misdemeanours (3) Penalties for Prostitution Chapter XVI- Duties of Men and Women Chapter XVII- Inheritance-Partition Section (A)-Time of Partition Section (B)-Partition during Father's Lifetime Section (C)-Persons precluded from Inheritance Section (D)-The Sacramental Rites of those for whom they have not been performed Section (E)-What is Partible Section (F)-What is Impartible Section (G)-Allotment of Shares Section (H)-Strūdhana Section (1) Partition of Strīdhana Section (J)-The Partition of Property that had beon concealed Section (K) -Partition among Sons of diverse Castes Section (L)-Partition among the Sons of Divided Coparceners Section (M)--Sons-Different Varieties Section (N)-Heirs to the Property of Sonless Persons Section (0)-Partition among Reunited Coparceners Section (P)--Proof of Partition Section (Q)-Relative Importance and Authority of Transactions Chapter XVIII- Gambling and Betting Supplementary Chapter Dealing with Punishments Index 108 168 173 197 . . 207 211 213 220 222 232 . 240 241 249 256 264 288 300 . 313 315 317 317 .. .. 321 .

·VIVĀDACHINTAMANI VĀCHASPATI MISHRA Introduction PART (A)--BENEDICTORY When at the Assembly of Divine Beings, the Mother of Three Worlds arose out of the Milky Ocean with a smile on her lotus-like face, and her eye-brows raised high, God Vişnu accepted her with his glances, and with amorous feelings aroused in Himself by the advent of love, His hands moistened with profuse perspiration,-may God thus circumstanced save us from evil (1) Vāchaspati, having carefully studied the Kalpadruma (the Kytyakalpataru of Laksmīdhara), the Pārijata and the Ratnākara (the Vivādaratnākara of Chandeshvara) and other works,—with his head bowing to the Lord of Lakşmi (Vişņu), is going to compose the Vivādachintamani.-(2) PART (B)-ENUMERATION OF SUBJECT. HEADS OF DISPUTE [N.B.—The Texts quoted in the work have been numbered serially, for purposes of reference] On this point, says Manu (8.467) [1] 'Of these the first is (1) Recovery of Debt, then (2) Deposit, (3) Sale without Ownership, (4) Joint Concerns, (5) Non-delivery of Gifts, (6) Nonpayment of Wages, (7) Breach of Conventions, (8) Recission of Purchase and Sale, (9) Dispute between Owner and Keeper (of Cattle), (10) Boundary. disputes, (11) Assault-Physical, (12) Assault ---Verbal, (13) Theft, (14) Violence, (15) Adultery, (16) Duties of Husband and Wife,* (17) Partition, (18) Gambling and Betting; these are the eighteen topics that form the basis of law-suits. * The right reading is 'Strīpundharmo vibhāgashcha' as in Manu.

·CHAPTER I Debt 6 6 PART (A)-GENERAL Says Nārada- [2] Which debt is payable --which is not payable,-by whom, when and how it is to be paid,—the rules of giving and receiving all this is comprised under the topic of Debt (1.1).-When, for the purpose of security and profit, loan is given and taken, it is called Loan on Interest. It is by this that money-lenders make a living (1.98).' Security -safety of the Principal; while this remains intact, there is 'profit', in the shape of Interest.–For the purpose of these, thore is giving and taking', these are acts so understood by both parties. Thus the meaning is that while the Principal remains intact, for the purpose of augmenting it, the creditor gives, advances, and the debtor receives them on the terms offered; this is called 'Debt'. In a case where there is no Interest, and the Principal remains as it was,-the name 'Debt' is applicable only in the indirect (figurative) sense ; because such a loan is not a means of livelihood'. The basis for such figurative use of the name lies in the fact that even such a loan has to be repaid in the same way as the Loan on Interest. This has been made clear under Discourse IV of the Nyāyasūtra.* In the case of Debt there is 'receiving of the same thing that has been 'given', zor of something of the same kind. Hence it is that where money is advanced for purposes of trade, it is not 'Debt'. The exact denotation of the term 'Debt: (Rņam) has been thus described by BỊhaspati (11.2) [3] ""Debt is that loan on interest which-fourfold or eightfold-is unhesitatingly received from & person who is poor (kutsita) and suffering (sīdan).' The particle 'or implies that there is no restriction. Says Kātyāyanam [4] 'Nothing on credit should be given to women, to slaves, or to minors; what is advanced to these is never recovered by the man advancing it.' On credit' i.e. Loan. How the recovery of the loan is secured is thus explained by Brhaspati (11.1) * Under Nyāyasūtra 4.1.59, it is argued that the duties of man aro callod 'Debts in the sense that it is necessary to perform them; and under 4.1.60, tho Bhäsya clearly say&The term Debt here is not used in the direct primary sense '. † That is how the 'twofold' also has been permitted. Debt, in fact, is to be defined as 'Loan on Interest'; the rest of the text only provides an otymological explanation of the name 'Kusīda!-(Vivādaratnākara, page 5).- Jolly romarks 'The commentators explain that “unhesitatingly" implies that it is sinful otherwise to accept a gift from an unworthy person'. IB ·LAW OF DEBTS 3 [5] "The creditor should advance a loan after having secured a Pledge of adequate value, or a Security with a trustworthy surety, entering it into a bond duly attested by witnesses.' These have to be secured in order to inspire confidence. This text is meant to be an advice. Pledge' stands here for what is given for being used; Security stands for things other than * those for use, such things, for instance, as Gold and the like. This is the distinction between “Pledge (Adhi) and Security' (Bandha).* PART (B)-INTEREST Question :- What is the exact form of the Interest (derived from Loans)'? The answer is supplied by Manu (8.140) [6] 'The Money-lender shall stipulate an interest sanctioned by Vashiştha, for increasing the capital. He shall take monthly the eightieth part of a Hundred.'1 Vashiştha says as follows- [7] 'In the matter of Loans on Interest, listen to the rate of Interest sanctioned by Vashiştha-It is 5 Māşas in 20; in this morality is not outraged'- (Vashistha-Smrti, 2.51). That is, for 20 Palas, the interest is 1 Mäşa.ß On the point says Brhaspati- * The right reading'anyat' is provided by MSS. a and b. † The commentators agree in explaining the term 'adhi', 'pledge', as denoting a pledge to be used, such as, e.g. a cow to be used with her milk, or landed property pledged for its produce. The term 'bandha', 'security', is supposed to denote a pledge which must not be used : according to the Mayukha, however, it means & pledge not actually delivered to the creditor,-the debtor merely promising not to alienato it. Jolly.— Adhi' thus stands for the transaction commonly known as 'sudbharna', and 'Bandha' for what is known in North India as 'bandhaka' or makbul'.-The Vivādaratnākara (p. 5) however says— Ādhibandhashabdau bhogyādhipararı'mi.e. The terms ādhi and bandha both stand for the pledge to be used'. This can only mean ‘pledge capable of being used, in the way in which the cow and the land are used?; and the distinction in that case would be that in the case of Adhi, the creditor would be actually enjoying the usufruct, while in that of Bandha he would not be actually doing so. In this explanation, however, golden ornaments and such things would not come in at all. Of adequate value-i.e. corresponding in value to the Principal and Interest.- Security with a trustworthy surety. In this case, as the creditor would not have the Pledge for use, he would naturally need & reliable surety.-The 'trustworthiness' of the surety should lie in his being more likely to remain accessible than ordinary people (Vivādaratnākara, p. 5). The Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, p. 293) explains 'bandha' as 'pledge deposited as security with a mutual friend'. # At the time of advancing the loan, he should clearly stipulate the rate of interest-says Medhātithi.—Monthly-i.e. after the lapse of a month-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 7 and Vāramitrodaya, p. 296).-'Sanctioned by Vashistha' -as laid down in Vashiştha-Dharmashästra 2.51; and Vashistha-Smrti 12.29.-Ashâtibhāgam'- of 100 Kārsāpaņas, the eightieth part would be 20 Paņas'--says Smộtitattva, p. 349; so also Prāyashchittaviveka, p. 420.-The meaning is that when 100 Rupees have been advanced, the creditor should charge 14 Rupee after the lapse of one month'-(Vīramitrodaya, 916).—'The legal interest per month on every 100 Panas is 14 Pana; it is 5 Panas in business-transactions, 10 Panas for people trading in forests and 20 Panas for people trading on the seas'-(Arthashāstra, p. 64). $ The 20 in Vashistha's text stands for 20 Palas-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 7).

·4 VIVĀDACHINTAMAŅI [8] 'The Mäşa has been declared to be the twentieth part of the Pala.' The 'Māşa', in this context, is equivalent to 16 Raktikas; so that for a debt of 20 Palas, which would be equal to 4 Suvarnas, the interest in a month * would be i Suvarna, i.e. 5 Māşas, the Māșa being equal to 16 Raktikas ;-and this 1 Suvarna would be the eightieth part of 20 Palas; and thus the interest comes to be the eightieth part.-Undor Manu's text (No. 6 above), for 100 Suvarnas, the interest, after a month, would be i Suvarna, plus 20 Raktikas (i.e. 14 Suvarna). Even so, this rate of interest applies only to a Loan secured by a Pledge; $ as is clear from the following specific declaration $ by Yājñavalkya— [9] 'The eightieth part of the Principal shall be the interest per month, when the Loan is advanced on a Pledge.'-(2.37) So also Vyāsa- [10] 'The monthly interest has been declared to be the eightieth part; where there is a Pledge,--the eightieth part along with its eighth part || when there is a Surety,--and 2 per cent, when there is no Plodge (or Surety).' Ashitaḥ' is eightieth part.- Sāstabhāgaḥ-i.e. the eightioth part along with the eighth part of the eightieth part; so that when the Loan consists of 20 Palas of Gold, the interest would be 9 Raktikās. 1-'Nirädhānā' **-.e. when there is neither Pledge nor Surety.--Dvikam shatam-i.e. on 100 Suvarnas, the interest, in one month, would be 2 Suvarnas.—This is for the Brāhmana, not for any other caste.tt As says Manria [11] 'Ho may charge just 2, 3, 4 or 5 per cent, per month, from the four castes respectively $14(8.142) ‘By taking 2 per cent, one does not incur the sin of extortion.' -(8.141) 6 * The right reading is provided by the MSS.—'Palavinishatitayē ināsēna sodasha'. † All this computation in the Text is based upon the understanding that the Māsa is equal to 16 Raktikas, for which the sole authority is Brhaspati. This measure, however, is not the one accepted by Manu (8.134) and Yājñavalkya (1.36- 364) and Vişnu (4.1-13); according to whom, the Māşa is 5 Raktikas,-16 Māsas make 1 suvarna. For details see notes on Manu. This view has been accepted by Kullūka and other commentators on Manu; Medhătithi says nothing on this point.--Vivādaratnākara (p. 7) and Vīramitroduyu (p. 916) agree with the view bere expressed. § The right reading supplied by the MSS. is 'vishēşaparayājña || For'Sāstabhāgah', the Smrtichandrikā, p. 361, reads 'şāştho bhāgah, 'the sixtieth past'. T By this, the interest obtained is 2 Purāņas, reduced by 2 Panas (Vivādaratnākara, p. 7). ** Niràdhāna'-'adhāna', 'Pledge', here stands for the Pledge along with the Surety; hence the meaning is that in a case where there is neither Pledge nor Surety, the interest obtained is 2 Purānas (Vivā. ra.). This is for the Brāhmana; for the Ksatriya and other castes, the ratos havo been specially prescribed as 3 or more Purānas in Manu 8.142.-(Vi. ra.) 11 These rates are to be charged for one year only, not beyond that.-These rates are permissible for the money-lender who could not make a living for his family by advancing loans at the ordinary rate, which is only 14 per cent;-or for the small capitalist; or in cases where the borrower is known to be dishonost.- (Medhätithi).

·LAW OF DEBTS 5 In the case of Loans secured by Pledge, etc. also, the rate of interest is enhanced according to the caste. So that when the interest charged from the Brāhmaṇa is 1, that charged from the Ksatriya is 13, from the Vaishya 2, and from the Shüdra 2}. If the Vaishya, or even the Brahmana and others in abnormal times of distress-receives interest, in accordance with this declaration of Manu, he does not incur sin; while by charging rates higher than this, such as 'stipulated', 'compound' and other rates (see Text 13 below), one causes distress to the debtor and thereby incurs sin. In normal times, if people other than the Vaishya receive either of these two sets of rates (the 2, 3, 4, 5 per cent, or the compound, etc;-j.e. any interest more than the 11 per cent), they incur sin. Says Hārīta [12] 'On 25 Purāņas, the monthly interest should be 8 Panas; at this rate, in 4 years and 2 months, the Principal stands doubled. This is a rate of interest that is righteous; by taking this, the creditor does not fall from righteousness.' In this way, in 50 months, the Principal becomes doubled; beyond that the Principal does not become augmented; this is what is meant.* Question :-What other rates of Interest are there, and how many are they ? On this point says Brhaspati (11.4-5) [13] 'Interest has been declared by some to be of four kinds; of five kinds, by others; by others again, of five kinds: (a) Kāyikā (Corporeal), (6) Kālikā (Periodic), (c) Chakra (Compound), (d) Kārikā (Stipulated), (e) Shikhā (Hair), (f) Bhogalābha (Enjoyment, Use).' And Vyāsa- [14] "The interest in the form of milch cattle, beasts of burden and personal service is called Käyikā, Corporeal.' + But Nārada [supplies the following definition of the Kāyikā interest) [15] 'Interest at the rate of one Pana, or Half-Pana or more, paid regularly, without detriment to the Principal is called Kāyikā '-(1.104) The term 'Kaya' (under this definition) stands for the Principal; that Interest which causes no detriment to this Principal,-i.e. which does not reduce it.— Regularly-i.e. yearly.-'Panardha'-is one Pana and a Half and so on. For paņārdhädyā', Halāyudha reads "paņavāhyā', which means 'that which is vāhya, capable of accumulating for a hundred years, when the Principal consists of one Pana'.I * This rule refers to the Brāhmana debtor, says Vivādaratnākara, p. 8. † Vivādaratnākara (p. 10) takes the compound' dohya-vähya-karma' as standing for the use of milch cattle and beast of burden. Medhätithi on Manu 8.153 includes under 'Kāyikā', that payable by bodily labour or by the use of a pledged animal or slave. The translation above has adopted this explanation, as more comprehensive. Jolly also on Nārada 1.104 says-Brhaspati and Vyāsa, derive the term 'Kāyikā' from Kaya', Body, and explain that it denotes bodily labour, or the use of a pledged slave'. $ The Vivādaratnākara (p. 10) also has noted this reading and explanation and has rejected it on the ground that this reading bas not been adopted by any other nībandha. It adds the following notes—Kāya' is the body of the Principal, "Shashvat-paņārdhôdya'—what has been fixed at a definite rate. Pana and a half and so forth,-fixed once for all by both parties.

·6 VIVÄDACHINTAMANI It has to be noted here that the Kāyikā, Corporeal, Interest, as defined by Vyäsa (Text 41 above), would be included under the 'Interest by enjoy. ment or use' (the sixth kind mentioned by Brhaspati under Text 13 above), while as defined by Nārada (in Text 15) it is different from that. [Nārada continues) [16] That which runs by the month * is called Kalikā, Periodic.—(1.103). Interest upon Interest is called Chakravrddhi, f Compound Interest. -(1.104) Says Kätyāyana (defining the Kāritā, 'Stipulated', Interest) [17] 'An enhanced I rate of interest may be paid when it is one that has been stipulated by the debtor in view of the urgency of his neod ; and this is called the Kāritā, Stipulated, Interest. The excessive Interest stipulated in other circumstances, is not payable.' 'In other circumstances'-i.e. to which the Debtor has beon made to agree, by force. Brhaspati (11.7), defining the Hair-Interest, 'Shikhäurddhi') says: [18] 'The Interest that is realised day by day has been regarded as the Hair-Interest, (Shikhāvșddhi); it grows daily like the Hair-tuft, and as the Hair ceases to grow only when the head is cut off, so the Interest ceases only when the Principal has been paid up. This is why it is called the Hair-Interest'.|| The Interest of Enjoyment consists in the rent of the House and the produce of land.' The 'stoma' of the House is the rent realised from it; or the use of the Bed and other articles of furniture in the House. The enjoyment of the produce of the field that has been pledged is called 'Shada', 'Produco'; the term being derived from the root 'Shadır' to cut (harvest).**.This has been called also. Adhibhoga', 'use of the pledge'. What has been just said is only by way of illustration. For says Katyāyana- * 'Interest computed month by month is called Periodic.'-says a Text. But month' here is only illustrative. What is meant is that interest which is not allowed to accumulate, but is realised day by day, or month by month.-Another kind of Periodic Interest is that in which the creditor has stipulated-'If you do not pay the interest at such and such a time, the Principal shall bocome doubled'- (Vivāda. R.). † Interest charged on interest is called Chakravsddhi, Compound Interest. Others explain the term as 'wheel interest'; in the caso of wheeled conveyances, -cart, etc.- interest is paid only for those days on which they are used. So also in the case of beasts of burden-(Medhātithi on Manu 8.153). # That is, higher than the sanctioned rates of the eightieth part, or 2, 3, 4 per cent--(Vivādaratnākara, p. 10). § The excessive rate may be paid only when it has been voluntarily agreed to by the debtor, not when he has been forced by the creditor to agree to it (Vivādaratnākara, p. 11, and Väramitrodaya, p. 295). This text occurs in Byhaspati (11.9) also. 11 The Hair-Interest is realised day by day,_day by day' standing for that number of days within which the debtor has promised to repay-(Viramitrodaya, p. 294). The necessary vâ' is found in Msb. ** The Vīramitrodaya (p. 294) offers a different explanation:-Intorent in the shape of the satisfaction derived from residing in the house that has been pledged, and also in the shape of using the grains and fruits and other things produced in the land that has been pledged. 'House' and 'Land' hore stand for immoveable property in general.

·LAW OF DEBTS 7 [19] 'Where the whole use or enjoyment of the Pledge has been assigned as the Interest, that transaction represents what has been called the Interest of Enjoyment.' That is, it is a case of 'Interest of Enjoyment' where the stipulation is that the using of this article will constitute the Interest'. Thus then, (1) the Corporeal Interest is payable by the year; (2) the Periodic by the month; (3) Compound Interest is interest on the interest; (4) Stipulated Interest is that which has been agreed to under distress; (5) the Hair-Interest grows day by day; and (6) Interest of Enjoyment consists in the service of slaves, etc. (cattle). In reference to the fifth (Hair-Interest), first (Corporeal Interest) and sixth (Interest of Enjoyment)says Brhaspati (11.11) [20] 'Hair-Interest', 'Periodic Interest' and 'Interest by Enjoyment' shall be taken by the creditor so long as the Principal is not cleared off'. That is, in the case of these three kinds of Interest, if the Principal remains unpaid for a long time, the creditor may realise even more than the maximum interest sanctioned, in the form of double and the like. Apart from the 'Enjoyment of the Pledge', the debt may not be paid after three generations; as says Yājňavalkya (2.90) [21] "The Pledge is enjoyed so long as the Debt is not paid up;'- -which means that the Loan with a Pledge should be paid, even by the debtor's great-grandson.* In continuation of the sentence The Creditor shall restore'-Vişņu says [22] ‘not the immoveable Pledge, unless there is a special agreement to that effect, , -oven when the Interest has reached the maximum'-(6.7-8). That is, unless the Créditor has promised that-'When the Interest has reached the maximum, this Pledge shall be restored',-even though the Interest may have reached the maximum, through the enjoyment of the Pledge, he should not restore it to the debtor. Says Yājñavalkya (2.64) [23] 'In a case where a Pledge is given on the understanding that it is to be enjoyed after the Principal has become doubled,--the Plodge is to be restored as soon as the profit derived from the Pledge has made up the amount of the doubled Principal.' This also is to be taken as applying to the case where there is such an agreement accepted by the creditor; as it is simpler to take this text along with the above declaration of Vişnu (Text 22). * This is an exception to the general rule that the debt ceases to be payable after three generations-says the Mitākṣarā.-What is meant by the text is that even after the interest has reached the double by computation of the enjoyment, -the 'interest' in the shape of enjoyment is to continue(Vivādaratnākara, p. 13). † Even though the maximum Interest has been realised by the creditor, through the enjoyment of the Pledge, until the Principal is paid up, the creditor shall not give up the Pledge, unless he has previously agreed to surrender it after the lapse of a certain time (Vivādanatnākara, pp. 13-14). * This text is applicable to cases where the income from the Pledge is to be taken in lieu of the Interest and also in reduction of the Principal. That is why this is known among the people as Kgayādhi'-Mitākşarā.

·8 VIVADACHINTAMANI From among the six kinds of Interest (enumerated above in Text 13), four are not to be realised after one year; as says Gotama (i.e. Gautama) * [24] 'One shall not pay (or receivet) interest beyond the year,-nor what is unapproved (or unaccumulated); nor Compound Interest, nor Periodic Interest, nor Stipulated Interest, nor Corporeal Interest. '-(8.153) I It has been declared above by BỊhaspati (in Text 20) that the Corporeal Interest may be taken till the Principal is paid up; but that refers to the Corporeal Interest as defined by Nārada (in Text 15, above; as it is only that which can be 'without detriment to the Principal' as stated by Närada). The Corporeal Interest, on the other hand, which is mentioned by Gotama (Manu) in the text (24) just quoted, is the interest that is payable by bodily service, which is realised through the service of slaves and others; that this is so is held on the strength of its co-ordination with what has been declared by Byhaspati. Hence the milking of the Cow, etc. is to be enjoyed only till the end of the year. The four kinds of Interest-Compound and the rest, which have been forbidden, are to be taken if it has been agreed upon $; such being the implication of the next sentence ‘nor what is unapproved' (in Text 24). As a matter of fact.-(a) the receiving, through enjoyment, of interest beyond the double', (6) the realising of Compound Interest, and (c) when the Principal with accrued Interest has become doubled, then to treat this double account as the Principal and the realising of further interest on this new Principal, all this is unrighteous; it is not meant that these are not payable at all; because that they are payable has been declared by Brhaspati (Text 13 above). This is the reason why Byhaspati (11-12) says- [25] 'To continue to retain and enjoy the Pledge after the double of the Principal has been realised from it, to charge Compound Interest, and * This should be Manu; as the text is actually Manu's, 8.153. The same idea is found in Gautama also (12.30, 34-35), but the words there are different. † Though the prohibition is addressed to the debtor (“shall not pay'), it is really meant for the creditor.–Or' nirharét' may itself mean receive'-(Mitā.). The interest that has been sanctioned in connection with all castes—at the rate of 5 per cent shall be realised for one year only, and not after the lapse of a year. Or the meaning may be that no interest shall be realised during the year. .....Or the meaning may be that at the time of the transaction itself, it shall be determined whether the interest shall be computed monthly or yearly .. 'Unapproved'--not sanctioned by the scriptures; but as this has been already prohibited under 8.152, 'adrętā' should be taken as 'unaccumulated'; the meaning being that interest shall not be received by the day or by the month,--until it has accumulated during several months-Medhātithi. $ The question is raised-why should there be a special prohibition of the 'Compound' and other Interests, when the rates of Interest payable have been definitely laid down as 2, 3, 4, 5 per cent.--The answer given by Medhătithi is that this prohibition itself indicates that such Interests also are permissible under special circumstances; as laid down in Yājñavalkya and other Smrtis. Shukranīti says---Creditors deprive people of their property by means of the Compound Interest; the king should protect the people from them'-(4.5.633). Vivādaratnákara (p. 9) says--The meaning of the Text is that if the creditor, suspecting an early repayment of the loan, should stipulate that the loan must continue for a certain time, then he cannot stipulate thus for more than a year. Halāyudha, however, holds the meaning to be that, however much be the eagerness of the Creditor to earn much Interest, he should receive payment before one year passes, and not beyond that.--Nor should he receive interest that is 'adreta, not sanctioned by the scriptures. The Interests not sanctioned aro the Compound Interest and the rest. The Krtyakalpataru adds the explanation that the Interest is to be calculated from the first month up to the end of the year...not beyond that.

·LAW OF DEBTS 9 to realise the Principal along with Interest accrued (at the time of returning the Pledge),--all this constitutes Usury and is censured.'' The taking of Interest beyond the double, the taking of Interest on Interest, adding the Interest to the Principal and then treating and realising it as Principal, -all these three transactions have been condemned, -says the Grhastharatnākara. PART (C)—UNSTIPULATED INTEREST Says Kätyāyana- [26] 'If a man, having taken a loan, goes away when asked to repay it, then Loan begins to yield interest after three months.' "Uddhāra', 'Loan', here stands for ordinary Loan, without interest. After repayment has been asked for, interest begins to accrue after three months. Again- [27] (a) 'Having purchased a commodity, if the purchaser goes away, without paying the purchase-money, then interest begins to accrue on that money, after three seasons.'I (6) 'Deposit, Balance of Interest, Commodity sold, and Purchasemoney,--if these are not delivered on demand, they begin to yield interest at the rate of 5 per cent.' 'Kraya' is article sold.—'Vikraya' is purchase-money. 'After three seasons' has to be construed with this second text (6) also. The upshots of the whole thus is that, in the case of a Deposit, Balance of Interest, Purchasemoney or article sold,—not being delivered when demanded,-after six months (which constitute three seasons), interest at the rate of 5 Panas per cent has to be paid by the Shüdra; this restriction (to the Shūdra) being due to the different rates of 2, 3 and 4 having heen prescribed for the other castes (see Text No. 11 above). . * It is censured-even though sanctioned by the scriptures-says Vivādaratnākara. † Kätyāyana appears to have laid down several rules: (a) In one text he says -If a man, having taken a loan, goes away without paying it,--that loan begins to bear Interest after one year'. This however has been taken by Vāramitrodaya, p. 302, to refer to cases where no payment has been demanded during the year. (5) In another text, he says—'If the man, while remaining in bis own place, does not repay the loan on demand, he should be forced to pay Interest, even though it had not been stipulated'. I Vīramitrodaya (p. 302).--This refers to cases where no demand has been made by the vendor. In a case where the demand has been made, but no pay. ment made, Interest begins to accrue from the date of demand (see Text b below). Smrti-chandrikā (p. 363).—The rate of Interest chargeable in this case would be the eightieth part. § This does not appear to be the opinion of other authorities : For instance, Parāsharamadhava (p. 169) says that this is an exception to the general rule laid down by Nārada that'even unstipulated Interest begins to grow after six months'. and Vivādaratnākara (p. 15) says-What is meant is that if the vendor fails to deliver, on demand, the commodity sold m-or the vendor fails to pay, on demand, the purchase-money,both become liable to pay Interest at the rate of 5 per cent. -Both these appear to hold the view that Interest begins to accrue immediately after the demand, not after six months, as stated by Vivādachintamani.

·10 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Kātyāyana * again- [28] ‘A loan advanced through affection should not yield interest, unless repayment has been demanded. If, on demand, it is not paid, it shall yield interest at the rate of 5 per cent.' Prātidattam' is Loan advanced on account of affection. In this case, Interest begins to accrue after the lapse of three months;t in accordance with the above-mentioned statement of Kātyāyana (Text 26). Says Närada (1.108) [29] 'No interest should ever be realised on what has been given through affection, unless it has been stipulated. Even without an agreement, interest does accrue in such cases after the lapse of half a year.' 'Dattānām'-The 'dāna' here stands for mere giving (without any talk of repayment); $ hence there is incompatibility in this text with the period of 'three months' spoken of above (in Text No. 26), where regular loans, are meant. Again (says Kätyāyana)- [30] "If a man, having taken a loan, goes away without repaying it, that loan begins to bear interest after three seasons.' || The 'going away' is not meant to be an essential factor, as is clear from the following (from Kātyāyana) [31] 'Even while remaining in his own place, if the man does not repay the loan, on repeated demands,then, he should be made to pay, even against his wish, interest, even though it may not have been stipulated.' This however should be understood to refer to cases where the man has gone away through dishonest motives. In a case where the man has gone away on important business, and not through dishonest motives,-it should be as declared by Vişnu in the following text [32] 'On the lapse of a year, they should pay the sanctioned Interest, ** if not stipulated.'-(6.4) 'On the lapse of a year'—i.e. after one year. The upshot of the whole is as follows:- In all these cases, of Purchasemoney, Deposit, etc., if payment is withheld, even on demand-through dishonest motives, Interest begins to accrue after six months; while in cases where there is no dishonest motive, it does so after one year. Says Nārada (2.36) even * This same Text occurs in Nārada 1.109 also. † Other commentators do not accept this view. Asahāya (on Närada) and Vīramitrodaya hold that this loan shall yield Interest at the rate of 5 por cont from the day of the demand. Aparārka explains anākäritam' as 'not demanded'. $ This is the explanation added by Vīramitrodaya (p. 301). It adds Where the loan is taken without any understanding as to the time of repaymont, Interost begins to accrue after six months.-So also Parāsharamadhava (p. 168). ll According to another reading, found in Vīramitrodaya, p. 302, the period is one year'. Vivādaratnākara, p. 16, reads as here. 1 In this case the Interest payable is 2, 3, 4 or 5 per cent (according to the caste of the debtor-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 16). ** That is, at the rate of 2, 3, 4 or 5 per cent, according to the casto of the debtor-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 16).

·LAW OF DEBTS 11 (33] ‘Price of things bought, wages, deposits, fines, what has been attained by fraud,* improper gifts, etc., and winnings at dice,these do not bear Interest, unless so stipulated.' The Interest that has been declared payable under Katyāyana's text (No. 27 above), relating to Deposit and Purchase-money is in reference to the case where the debtor has gone away through dishonest motives.f [In Text 33)—Bhrti' is wages ;-'ābhihärikam'--what has been obtained by fraud or force ;- vrthädānam'-what has been promised, without any religious motive ;--'ākṣikapana'-winnings at gambling, etc. I Says Samvarta- [34] "There is no Interest on 'Stridhann', on Interest already earned, on Deposit that has retained its condition, on what had been in doubt, or on what has been due from a Surety ;-unless it has been voluntarily stipulated.'s 'Strīdhana'-the Wife's property spent by the Husband through love and affection. Similarly, having spoken of the 'Husband, Son || and others', the same writer says: [35] 'If any one of these (Husband, Son and others) uses the Strīdhana forcibly, he should be made to pay the Interest, and he should also suffer punishment. If, however, lie uses the same lovingly and with her consent, he should be made to repay the Principal only,--whenever he may happen to have the wherewithal to pay it.' PART (D)—THE MAXIMUM INTEREST ALLOWED Says Vyāsa [36] 'What is due from the Surety, the loan whereof the Pledge has been enjoyed (used up), that which has been offered (by the debtor) but not * The translation adopts the reading 'yachchābhihärikam' which has been adopted by Vivādachintāmani and Vivādaratnākara (p. 20). Other digests read 'yashcha prakalpitaḥ' which means '[the fine] that has been imposed'. | The MSS. a and b read this passage differently—tachchhadmapravēshitaparam vrddhāvapyēvam' (Ms. A), and "tachchhadmanapravēshitaparam urddhāvapyevam, achchhadmanāpraveshitaparam vrddhévapyevam' (Ms. B). It is best as in the printed text. # The 'Price of things bought' and 'Deposit' in this text stand for other than those that have not been repaid on demand; as for those the Interest payable has already been laid down before.—'Fine-here stands for the Highest Amercement and the rest.— Improper gift'-what has been offered, not actually given, without any religious motive. Vivakşita' is Interest agreed upon by both parties. In cases where they have already agreed upon the rate of Interest payable, that has to be paid of course—(Vivādaratnākara, p. 20). $ Stridhana'-the six kinds of it as defined in law—which has been borrowed by the husband.—Deposit, etc.'—the deposit meant here is other than the one that has not been restored on demand. What has been in doubt.'-In regard to which there had been a doubt as to whether or not it was payable, or it was only subsequently decided that it was payable.-Unless, etc.-if stipulated, it has to be paid in these cases also-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 20). Deposit, etc.-.e. which has not changed hands.—' From a Surety'-i.e. from the man who had stood security for the repayment of the debt-(Parāsharamadhava, p. 170). || The right reading is 'Charty-putrādīn' as in both MSS.

·12 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI accepted (by the creditor), Finos, the Wager and the Promised Gift,--all this does not yield Interest; nor when the debtor is held under restraint. As regards the amount due from the Surety, he has to pay only the double.' That is, in the case of the security-account, it does not become doubled (by the accruing of further interest). 'Bandha' stands for the Pledge to be kept.- Prapanna-one who is kept under restraint by the creditor. *_Shulka' stands for the amount that had been stated.-Pratishruta'--the gift that has been promised. This last must refer to the Improper Gift, as is simpler to take it thus in view what has been declared by Nārada above (under Text 33). Says Yajnavalkya (2.44) [37] 'If the creditor does not accept the loan he had advanced, when it is being repaid to him,-it should be deposited with a middle-man (neutral party); and thenceforth, it ceases to yield interest.' Gotama (12.33) [38] "The debt of the man held under restraint does not yield Interest.'t That is, it ceases from the day of the restraint. I The question that arises next is—If the debt remains unpaid for a long time, to what extent does it increase ? In answer to this, says Gautama (12.31) [39] 'If the loan remains outstanding for a long time, the Principal becomes doubled.' That is, even though the time elapsed might justify even the trebling, etc. of the Principal, the doubling of it is all that is allowed. This applies only to the case of Gems and such things. In this connection, Manu (8.151) lays down certain special rules:- [40] 'Interest on || loan taken at one ** time shall not exceed the * Vivādaratnākara (p. 21) takes 'Shulkam pratishrutam' together and takes it to mean 'the fee that one has agreed to pay.. † The meaning is that—the debt of a debtor who, being desirous to pay, is imprisoned by the king or others,—who is thus unable to pay-does not increase from that date'--Haradatta (commentary on Gotama), * The right reading is 'avarodhadināt na vardhate -as in the two MSS. $ According to Vivādaratnākara (p. 17), however, this refers to ordinary loantransactions.--See below for further notes on this point. || There is some confusion regarding the exact meaning of the temn Kusīdavrddhiņ'. , Curiously enough the Vivādachintamani restricts it to tho loan of gems and such things.--Medhätithi however takes 'Kusīda' in the sense of 'monetary loans', the advancing of money for earning Interest. Ho goes on to sayfor the money advanced may itself be called Kusida'. 'Taken’; the word in the text is 'sakydāhrtä'; it is so read by Vivādachintamani; which however notes later on the other reading 'sakydāhitā', which it says is wrong reading' [apapāthah' as read in the MSS.). 'Ahrtā' means taken, borrowed; while āhītā' means the stipulated (Interest). The reading ‘ährtā' is not accepted by Medhätithi, who remarks—'If the word is read as āhrtā, then the exact signification of 'sakyt' becomes doubtful'.-It is not easy too to construe ahstā' in the feminine (which should qualify the loan, kusīda which is what is trken). 'Anita', 'stipulated', therefore, should be accepted as the right reading. ** The exact signification of the term 'stipulated at one time has been thus explained by Medhātithi :- This phrase has been added with a view to the renewal of loans; even after the Principal has become doubled, if the creditor is willing to earn further Interest, and the debtor also wishes to retain the money for tho purpose $ ·LAW OF DEBTS 13 double.* In the case of Grains, Fruits, † Woolf and Beasts of Burden, it shall not go beyond the quintuple.'s of carrying on some larger business, he renews the bond, entering, as the new Principal, the former Principal along with the Interest accrued up to date, and thenceforward, it is on this new Principal that Interest begins to accrue; so that the original Principal, though already doubled, continues to grow further. It also continues to grow further when transferred to another party.--All these cases are excluded from the purview of the present rule by the phrase "stipulated for the first time".—Some people have held that this rule refers to a case where the whole amount of Interest accruing during the year is paid at one time. But this is not acceptable. Aparārka (on Yājñavalkya 2.39) remarks on this text of Manu:- What the phrase at one time means is that even after the Principal has become doubled, the Interest may, with the consent of the debtor, be added on to the Principal and thus it will go on growing further. This applies to loans of gold. Mitākşară (on Yājñavalkya 2.30), has the following remarks: This rule applies to cases where the loan is advanced at one time and also repaid at one time. If the transaction is renewed either between the same parties or through a third intermediary, then,--after the adjustment of the loan-account, by addition and subtraction, the new Principal becomes the subject of a new transaction and as such, begins to earn further interest. Even where the original transaction stands and continues, if the creditor has gone on realising his Interest either daily or monthly or annually, there is no chance of his dues (Principal and Interest) becoming doubled; so that in such cases, the Interest does continue to accrue even when after what has been realised is actually the double of the Principal. -According to Mitākşara then, the present rule is applicable to cases where the entire loan has been advanced at one time (not from time to time), and the repayment also is made at one time, after the accounts bave been made up after the lapse of ome time, and the payment thus, of the entire Principal along with the accrued Interest, is received at one time; so that the total amount received does not exceed the double of the Principal. The Vyavahāra-mayūkha (p. 171) agrees with this view. * Double'.-The exact words of Manu's text are Vyddhiḥ dvaigunyam nätyēti', the Interest shall not exceed the double'; and if it is the Interest that is to become double, then such an Interest, along with the Principal, would make the amount payable treble of the Principal, which is not what is intended.--Medhātithi has met this difficulty in the following manner:- In the compound 'dviguna', the term 'guna' stands for fold or part; and when we come to look out for the whole of which it is a part, it is the Principal which, from the context, appears to be that whole. Hence when the Text speaks of the double', what is meant is the double of the capital advanced.--That this is the real intention of the law is clear from the text of Yājñavalkya (2.64)—which says that The Pledge is to be redeemed when the Principal has become doubled',- and that of Gautama (12.31), which says— When there is delay the capital advanced shall become doubled'. t'Sada' has been explained by Vivādachintāmaņi as Shasya', 'what is harvested'. This however does not appear to be right; as 'grains' (* dhānyam') also are harvested. Medhātithi explains it as fruits of trees', because (he says) grains here are mentioned separately.-Vivādaratnākara (p. 17) explains it as 'fruits growing on trees'. #Lava',--says Mēdhadithi-stands, among northerners, for wool.–Vivādaratnākara (p. 17) explains it as the wool growing on sheep, etc.. $ Quintuple'-Medhātithi adds the following notes:-Another Smrti text (Nārada, p. 107) lays down quadruple' in the case of grains. The law on this point is as follows:-If the money-lender has become reduced to poverty and the debtor has become opulent,--having earned much wealth by means of the grain borrowed, -then it is to be quintuple, and in other cases, it is only quadruple'. Vivādaratnākara (p. 17). In the case of these things, it may so happen that the man has borrowed a hundred at the usual rate of 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 per cent; but after the lapse of a long time, he is not able to pay more than 500; then this is all that is payable.-In regard to grains, Byhaspati has placed the limit at quintuple; Vişnui, Marichi, Vashistha and Hārīta at triple. The exact amount payable, under the circumstances, is to be determined either by the circumstances of the debtor, or by considerations of the high or low prices at which grains are selling at the time. So also in the case of other things.

·14 VIVADACHINTĀMAŅI That is, in the case of Gems and such things borrowed for the first time, the Interest is only double;-and in the case of Grains and other things, tha Interest is quintuple. Thus the sense is that when the loan-transaction is entered into more than once, the Interest may be more than double.-Such appears to be the view of the Ratnākara and others also.—The reading 'āhitā' (in place of "ährtā') therefore is not right. "Vähya'-Beasts of Burden; such as the ox and the like.— Shada' is what is harvested.— Lava' is what is clipped, shorn, e.g. wools, except that of sheep. That in the above text, the Sheep's wool is not excluded is shown by the exception ['apavīdaka' as in MSS.] provided by Kātyāyana- [41] 'Of gems, pearls, corals, gold and silver,--the Interest stops at the double; also on fruits, silks and wool.' And Gautama (12.36)- [42] 'On animal-products, wool, field-products and beasts of burden, the Interest shall not exceed the quintuple.'* 'Animal-product' here stands for milk and other things, with the exception of Clarified Butter; as is indicated by the following text of Kātyāyana, [43] 'For all oils, wines and Clarified Butter,--as also of molasses and salt, - the Interest has been declared to be octuple.' Says Byhaspati (11.13)- [44] 'On gold, the Interest may make it double; on clothes and base metals, treble; on grains, quadruple; so also on field-products, beasts of burden and wools.' Shada', 'field-product', here stands for produce of land, other than grains, such as fruits and the like.t Vişnu- [45] 'On Rasas (liquids, flavouring substances), it is octuple (6.14); on females and cattle, the Interest is in the shape of their progeny-(6.15) > * Vivādaratnākara (p. 18) includes Clarified Butter also; ----field-productsgrains, like barley, wheat, etc., and also plantains, mangoes and other fruits. Haradatta (says Buhler) mentions another explanation of this text of Gautama's: 'If products of animals, etc. have been bought and the price is not paid at once, that may increase five-fold by the addition of Interest, but not to a greater sum. † 'Gold' here stands for Gold and Silver, 'Kupya' stands for all metals other than Gold and Silver, i.e. Copper and the rest. Such as Cane-juice and the like says Vivādarātnākara, p. 19. The compound pashustrānām' has been taken to mean cattle and females (slave-girls)', or female cattlo'. Aparārka and Mitākṣarā take it in the latter seiso. -When female cattle is lent out on Interest, its progeny is to be the sole Interest payable,-says Aparārka.--Mitākgarā says-The lending out of cattlo is done by persons desirous of having it maintained and obtaining its offspring; and the receiving of such cattle on loan is done by those who are desirous of tending the cattle and obtaining the milk.-Vishvarūpa adds that the Text may be taken to mean "cattle and females ', -the latter standing for slave-girls.--According to Smrti-chandrika (p. 362) females stand for slave-girls; it adds that if thero is no progeny, the only Interest obtained is in the shape of the maintenance and safoty of the property lent.---Vivādaratnākara (p. 18) has the following notes: "Females -slave-girls and the like, 'cattle-Cow, she-buffalo, etc. are handed over by the owner who is unable to maintain them, to another person, for the purpose of having ·LAW OF DEBTS 15 1 Brhaspati (11.14-15) [46] 'On pot herbs, it has been declared to be quintuple; sextuple on seeds and sugar-cane; octuple on salt, oil and spirituous liquor; also on molasses and honey;--if the loan has been of long standing.' The octuple laid down by Vişnu in Text No. 45) in connection with Rasas (Liquids or flavouring substances) should be taken as referring to the salt, etc., because these have been specifically named in the present text.* In another Text, Vashiştha (2.46-47) has laid down treble (in connection with Rasas): [47] 'Double in Gold; treble in Grains; the same with Rasas (Liquids, or Flavouring Substances), as also flowers, fruits and roots; octuple on articles held by the balance.' This 'octuple' must be understood to be applicable to things other than Gold and the like; as in regard to these special rates of Interest have been specially prescribed.t Says Brhaspati (11.16) [48] 'On grass, wood, bricks, yarns, substances from which spirituous liquor is extracted, leaves, bones, skins, weapons, flowers and fruits, there is no Interest prescribed. I Kinva' is what forms the basis of the Paistī liquor.-'Hēti' is weapon. This rule is meant to prohibit the charging of interest in the case of these articles, if it has not been stipulated; in cases however where, on account of the exigencies of business, the Debtor has agreed to pay Interest, it is payable of course. It is for this reason that under Text No. 41 Kātyāyana has spoken of double Interest' on 'field-products, silk and wool', and under Text No. 47 Vashiştha has spoken of the treble Interest' in connection with 'fruits, flowers and roots'. In connection with grains, there are several rates of Interest, according to the value of the grain advanced. For instance, if the price of the grain after harvest is only a little less than the price at the time of the advancing of the loan and at the time before the harvesting, the Interest would be 'double'; while if the price after harvest is much less, it would be' quadruple'; and if it is still lesser, it would be 'quintuple'.-All that is said in this connection with regard to the Interest becoming double and the rest, moans that it is the Principal & that becomes so doubled, etc.; as no lapse of time is mentioned in the texts. & 6 them maintained and obtaining their progeny; the understanding being that the keeper shall enjoy the services of the slaves and the milk of the cattle. If this arrangement continues for a long time, the only Interest payable is in the form of Progeny; there is no other Interest. * But Vivādaratnākara (p. 19) has taken 'rasa' to mean Cane-juice, etc. † Articles held by the balance'-such as Cataphor and the like-says Vivādaratnākara (p. 18), and it adds that this refers to those 'articles held by the balance the rates of Interest upon which have not been specially laid down. This rule relates to those countries where the custom is that in the case of grains, Interest can extend only to the Treble and so forth; or to cases where the Debtor is very poor-(Vīramitrodaya, p. 298). In this matter the exact rule to be applied to any particular case shall be determined by the capacity of the Debtor and also the condition of the times whether there is famine or not, and so forth-Mitākşarā and Parāsharamadhava, p. 171). | By another reading noted in several digests, the meaning is that 'Interest does not cease',-.e. it goes on accruing indefinitely. This is more in keeping with Vashistha. $ The right reading 'mülamâtra' is supplied by Mb.

·16 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Says Hārīta (in regard to the variability of Interest according to the price of the grain)- [49] ‘At the time of the now harvest, grain becomes double; it may rise up to treble.' * That Interest is determined by the price of things is indicated by Manu also in the following Text- [50] 'As regards the exact amount to be paid, the Interest shall be that which is fixed by persons expert in sea-voyages, and those capable of calculating the profits in connection with particular places and times' --(8.157) + Knowing that there is much profit from trading on the seas, they fix a higher rate of Interest on loans relating to it. To the same effect Hārīta also- [51] 'According to some people, the rate is one Pana per month on each Purana.'t Nārada also has declarod as follows- [52] “This is the general rule for Interest payable on loans. There are special rules according to the local usages of the country where the loantransaction has taken place. In some countries, the loan may grow till the double of the Principal has been reached; in other countries, it may grow till it becomes treble, or quadruple, or octuple -(1.105-106). For instance, in some other country it may be that the amount that fetches a seer (of grain) before the new harvest, fetches four seers after the harvest; when there is such knowledge of the effects of time and place,-and accordingly Interest accrues even after the Principal has reached the double, etc. [read 'dvaigunyēpi lābhah' as in MSS. these latter alternative rates * At the advent of the new harvest, even though only two or three months might have elapsed since the advance was made, the grain becomes doubled. If it is not repaid at the new barvest, then it goes on to increase up to Treble; beyoud that it does not rise-says Vivādaratnākara, p. 12. † Sea-voyage' stands here for all tradesmen.- Places and times'-thoso who know that trading in such countries brings such profits-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 11; also Kętyakalpataru). Medhatithi-Sea-voyage' has been mentioned only by way of illustration. What is meant is that whatever Interest is fixed by traders who know all about journey by land and water should be determined as the exact amount to be paid. -Some people have taken this text as supplying the answer to the question 'In & case where the Debtor has entered into a contract on the strength of profits to be made at a particular place and time,—but on reaching that place, he does not make that profitm-what is the amount of Interest that he should pay? -The answer is that in such a case the King shall decide as due that amount which may be fixed by those tradesmen who know each other's circumstancos and the chances of profit and loss. Dealers on the seas should pay 20 per cent says the Arthashāstra (p. 64). According to the Vivādachintāmani, this rule is to be taken as fixing the rate of Interest in accordance with the value of the cominodity traded in. Not so Vivādaratnākara (p. 11), according to which it lays down a difforent rate of Interest for Debtors of mixed castes'. This is the opinion that Vāchaspati has in view in his notes after the next text. § According to Asahāya, what Nārada's text means is that where local customs obtain, differing from the rules previously given, they have to be followed ;--which favours Vāchaspati's former explanation.

·LAW OF DEBTS 17 are payable; or these rates may be taken as applying to the four castes respectively. Or in Text 51 above, in place of 'masam', we may read't ülam'*; the meaning, in that case, would be that in two or three months the quantity of cotton payable would be “double'; when more time elapses, the grain payable may be treble; but in the case of Purāņa (gold coin, standing for monetary transaction in general) the Interest would go by Panas. The Ratnākara says this rule applies to the 'mixed castes'. Cultured people hold that in the case of grains, the trebling or quintupling is due to the length of time. PART (E)-PLEDGE Says Nārada (1.117)- [53] "That to which a title is created is a Pledge (Ādhi); it is to be understood to be of two kinds: (1) That which must be released within a stipulated time, and (2) that which must be retained till the debt has been dis. charged.' † 'Anyataḥ' stands for the other kind'. Again, says Nārada (1.125) [54] "The Pledge should be treated as it was delivered; if the Pledge is destroyed, there is loss of Interest; similarly if, through the negligence of the Creditor, the Pledge becomes damaged.' Tiparyaya' is Destruction.-'Vikrti' is Damage,-breaking for instance. What is meant is that when there is loss or damage of the Pledge, through the negligence of the Creditor, there is forfeiture of the Interest.I * Ma and Mb read throughout this passage 'tulam' for 'tūnam' in the printed text. That is the reading that we have adopted. † According to Asahāya, the Pledge to be released within a stipulated time is again of two kinds:-It may either be deposited with a 'Keeper of Pledges' (Ādhipāla; the modern Official Assignee ?) who is to return it to the Debtor at the stipulated time; or it may be delivered to the Creditor himself on the condition that it is to be returned after the lapse of a certain period. The usufruct of 'the Pledge to be detained till the debt has been liquidated' shall belong to the Creditor-till the debt has been wholly paid up. Says the Mitākşară (under Yājña. 2.57).--At the time of depositing the Pledge, the Pledger stipulates--'I shall repay the debt at the time of the Diwalī and redeem this Pledge; failing this, the Pledge will become your property';--this is the first kind of Pledge ;-it is of the second kind when no such time is specified for resumption and the Pledge remains with the Pledgee, as a Pledge, till the debt is discharged; till then he keeps the Pledge in his custody. I By damaging the Pledge, the Pledgee forfeits the Interest; i.e. he loses the produce of the land and the use of the dwelling-house--(Asahāya). The Pledgee shall preserve the Pledge; if, through his negligence, the article is lost or damaged, the Creditor loses the Interest-Vivādaratnākara (p. 22). So also Vāramitrodaya, p. 306 and Smrtichandrikā, p. 327; according to the latter, the text quoted contains two statements--- (1) If the Pledge becomes lost, the Pledgee loses all his Interest, and (2) If the Pledge becomes damaged and is restored to the Pledger in the damaged condition, the Creditor loses his Interest. It proceeds This rule applies to cases where the Interest accrued is sufficient to restore the Pledge to its pristine form.-'Negligence' stands for causes other than use by the Pledgee; 2 ·18 VIVĀDACHINTĀMANI So also Kātyāyana [this is the same as Yājñavalkya 2.591 [55] 'If the Pledge to be kept is used, there is no Interest;* so also if there is any loss or damage of the Pledge given to be used. If it is lost or damaged, except by an act of God or of the King-it must be mado good.' † Says Manu (8.143) [56] 'In the case of the Pledge to be used, the Creditor shall receive no Interest.' I The term 'sopakārē' in these texts means 'on being used'. Moro use of the Pledge being sufficient to bring about the forfeiture of Interost, the mention of loss or damage (in Text 55) simply adds another roason, both the reasons conjointly serving the same purpose.g--The meaning thus is that if any sort of Pledge becomes unfit for use by any act of the Creditor, the Interest becomes lost. Again [57] "The fool who, without the owner's permission, uses the Pledge, shall have to remit half the amount of the Interest as Compensation for such use '-(Manu 8.150; also Nāraila 1.128).|| 6 what is meant is that, if the Pledge is damaged by such other causes, the Pledgee shall either restore it to its pristine form or lose his Intorest; wliile if the Pledge given for being kept has been damaged by use by the Pledgee, then tho Pledgee shall both lose his Interest and return the Pledge after restoring it to its original form.-- 'Damage stands for diminution, transference, deterioration and such other contingencies as tend to alter the character of the article. According to Arthashăstra, the Pledge has to be restored on the payment of the debt, in the same condition in which it was pledged'. * According to the explanation provided by Vāchaspati below, of the word sopakārē', the meaning of the second sentence would be -- So also if the Pledge is used and damaged'. But no other writer has taken it in this sense; neither any commentator on Yājñavalkya, nor any digest-writer; all of whom are agreed in taking it as translated above. The same term 'sopakārē' occurring in Ilunu has been taken as above,--not as Vāchaspati takes it. † Pledge to be used'-amsuch as utensils.—Darnaged'-ronderod unfit for use by an act of the Creditor.--Sopakārē’-i.e. such things as Bullocks and the like, whoro there is no Interest payable, except the using of tho Plodge. Votstrih-dumaged, spoilt, brokon or otherwise rondered uselors ;'vinastu totally destroyed. In both cases the Pledgeo has to restoro tho Pledge either by paying its price or by other means-(Vivādaratnākıra, pp. 23 and 25). If the Pledge to be used such as the Bullock and other usoful and holpful articles-has been nastah, damaged, changed for the worse, it should bo restored to its original condition and then restored; and the Intorest, if any, becomes forfeited ; -if it is 'vinaştaħ', totally destroyed, it shall be made good to the Pledger by paying its price.The meaning of the first sentence is that if the Pledgo to be kept is used, there is no Interest to be paid'-(Métākṣarā). I 'Pledge to be used is of two kinds: (1) That in which the profit consists of some form of product of the pledged article ; e.g. the milch cow; und 2) that which is used as it stands; e.g. wrought gold and such articles. If 'sopakāra' horo standa for the Pledge to be used, the rule is that while such Plodge is boing unod by the Creditor, he shall receive no Interest. Sopakārē' is Pledge to be used-says Snurtichandrikā (p. 325). $ This explanation of sopakārē' is against all other authoritios. Medhatithi says (on Manu 8.150)—This rule is applicablo to casos whore the Creditor makes only partial use of the Pledge,-- distinguished from canes of total appropriation, which has been dealt with under 8.144. By partial uso the article only becomes deteriorated; hence the creditor forfeits half the Interest. In a caso however, where the Pledge consists of new clothes and such articles, these, on boing used, become spoilt; and in this case the usor does not only lose the Intorost, ho 2B ·LAW OF DEBTS: PLEDGE 19 [58] 'If the Creditor, without the Pledger's permission, takes work out of an unwilling Pledge,ấhe should be made to pay the price of such work; or else he forfeits the Interest'-(Kātyāyana).* According to this text of Kätyāyana, the whole of the Interest is lost if an unwilling Pledge is used; but he loses only half the Interest in the case of the Pledge consisting of the slave and such articles (as laid down in the former text), (which is really Manu 8.150, but has been quoted by Vāchaspati as Kātyāyana's].-But if there is using of the Pledge to be kept, there is loss of the whole Interest (as laid down in Text 55 above). Saya Nārada (1.126) [59] 'If the Pledge is lost, the Principal becomes forfeited, except where the loss has been due to an act of God or of the King.' † Brhaspati (11.20) says- [60] 'If the Pledge has been used and rendered worthless, by such use, the Principal becomes forfeited. If a very valuable Pledge is damaged, the Pledgee must render satisfaction to the Debtor.'* This refers to case of loans without Interest. Says Vyāsa- [61] 'If the Pledge in the shape of Gold and the like is lost through the negligence of the Receiver, the Creditor should be made to pay its value, after having realised his own Principal with Interest accrued.'$ has to make good the value of the article. Others have explained these rules as applying to the case where the Pledge has not been redeemed even after the Principal has become doubled; and as the user's fault in this case is insignificant, he is to lose only half the Interest. But this view is not acceptable. 'Half' stands here not for the exact half. but for the amount that would be computed to be the monetary value of the use made by the Creditor. This rule applies to a case where the use is not forcible-(Vīramitrodaya, p. 307). Vivādaratnākara (pp. 23-24) thus sums up the sense of Manu: (a) Where the Creditor uses the Pledge without permission, he forfeits half the Interest; (6) where, even though forbidden, he persists in using it by force, be forfeits the entire Interest;-(c) if he does not renounce the Interest, then he should satisfy the Pledgee by paying him the computed monetary value of the use made by him. * This text (Kätyāyana's, No. 58) refers to cases where the Pledge is in the form of animate objects Slaves, Bullocks, Horses, etc. (Aparārka). 'Unwilling '—this applies to Slaves only.- Price'-wages in the case of Slaves and hire in the case of Bullocks. This rule refers to Pledges given to be kept (Smrtichandrikā, p. 326). Made to pay-by the King, to the Debtor. † Act of God'-such as Fire, Floods, Anarchy and so forth.---'Act of the King'- i.e. an action taken by the King, without anything wrong done by the Pledges (Mitālsarā on 2.59). Act of God'-circumstances beyond human control (Smrtichandrikā). "Rendered worthless' i.e. entirely incapable of being used. Very valuable' - i.e. whose value exceeds the amount to be recovered from the Pledger- (Vivādaratnākara, p. 25). The loss to the Pledgee should be in proportion to the extent to which the Pledge has been rendered useless; and in the case of the very valuable ? Pledge, the Creditor should deduct his own Principal and Interest from the value of the Pledge and pay the balance to the Debtor. This is what is meant by 'satisfaction'; which does not mean that he should be paid whatever he wants. This is made clear by Manu 8.144—(Smrtichandrikā, p. 328 ; also Varamitrodaya, p. 309). § If he does not pay the value, he loses his Principalm(Tīramitrodaya, p. 309).

·20 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Says Brhaspati (11.21)-- [62] 'If a Pledge be destroyed by an act of God or of the King, the Debtor shall deliver another Pledge, or repay the loan.' And Närada (1.130) -- [63] “When a Pledge, though kept with care, loses its value in course of time, the Debtor shall either give another Pledge or repay the loan to the Creditor.' And Vişnu (5.181-182)— [64] ‘If one has pledged more than a “bull's hide” of land to one person.- and without having redeemed it from him, pledges the same to another - he should suffer corporeal punishment. If the area of the land be less, he should be made to pay a fine of 16 Suvarnas.' What this means is that the later Pledge-transaction is not valid. Such is the opinion also of Pārijāta, Ratnākara, Smrtisāra and others. From this it is to be understood that there would be no objection to the owner selling the plot of land in question. Says Visnu (5.183) [65] 'That plot of land,-more or less, the product of which would maintain one man for one year, is called Bull's Hide.' Again [Vişnu [66] 'If the same article has been pledged to two persons, and there is a dispute between these, the victory should lie with the man who has had use (possession) of it without force. In case the possession (use) of it also by the two men has been of equal duration,-it should be equally divided between the two. Such is the law in regard to gifts and sales.' This is a rare case; and in such cases where there is equal evidence on both sides, the decision should be arrived at by means of 'Supernntural Methods' (Ordeals). Says Kātyāyana [67] 'If, without any fault of the Creditor, tho Pledge should sink in value or perish, the Debtor should be made to deliver another Pledge; the Debtor does not become absolved from the debt.' * For the idea that,m'in the event of a pledged hullock or the like dying by chance while pledged, the Pledgeo forfeits his Principal', the only authority consists in undisputed custom. Again [Kätyāyana) * What is meant is that—if, without any fault of the Creditor, the plodgeci article becomes useless, the Debtor should produce another Plodge oqual to it; and he does not become absolved from the debt without paying it. As rogards the view held by some people that in the event of the plodged Bullock and such things perishing by chance, the creditor forfeits his Principal and the Debtor logos his property in the form of the pledged article (the account betwoon them becoming thus squared)',--the only authority for this could be an indisputol custom to the effect; but if such a custom does exist anywhere, it should be takon as roferring to Pledges to be used-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 26).

·LAW OF DEBTS: PLEDGE 21 [68] 'In a case where the Pledger * (or his heirs) is lost (* and the Principal has become doubled), the Creditor shall surrender the Pledge to the King; thereafter, it shall be notified and sold,—such is the law. Out of the sale-proceeds, the Creditor shall receive his Principal with Interest and surrender the balance to the King.' of Says Bịhaspatia [69] 'When a house or plot of land has been pledged for use,-if the period fixed for such use has not expired.--the Debtor cannot recover his property, nor the Creditor bis loan.' 'Bhogē'--for use.—'Na prakarsānvitam'—the stipulated period of use has not expired. [70] 'After the stipulated period has elapsed, the ownership of both over both becomes established. But even before the expiry of the stipulated period, they can come to an arrangement with mutual consent.' Prakarşa'--Stipulated time-limit. Says Manu (8.143)- [71] 'There shall be neither transference nor sale of the Pledge (by the Pledgee) merely by the lapse of time.' Kālasamrodhaḥ'--the Pledge being retained for a long time.- Nisarga' is the transference of the Pledge to a third party, on mortgage for a larger amount. Halāyudha, however, takes it as giving away'.—The whole sentence should read as -Transference and sale should not be done by the Creditor'. Others, however, have explained the sentence as follows: 'As the Creditor has not yet acquired any proprietary right over the pledged article, there can be no possibility of his transferring and selling it; and it cannot be right to forbid what is not possible; consequently, the words should be taken to on account of the samrodha--i.e. stipulation fixing the time limit, -during that time, the Debtor cannot be forced to dispose of the article concerned; hence he should not effect the transference-giving away—and sale of the Pledge to a third party As regards the rule that 'if one pledges an article and then sells it, it is the sale-transaction that supervenes', this must be taken as referring to cases where there is no stipulation regarding the time-limit. As regards another rule, that~'there can be no giving away or sale of the Pledge that has not been redeemed', there is no authority for it. The Kalpataru says that this text of Manu applies to the Pledge for use. But this is a sweeping assertion; because what is stated is possible also in & mean that " > > * Or his heirs' has been added by Vivādaratnākara (p. 34); so also the words and the Principal, etc. etc.'. † The balance is to be surrendered to the King only when no relative of the Debtor can be found; if any such can be found, it should be given to him-- (Aparārka, p. 658 and Viramitrodaya, p. 311). According to an explanation given in Mitākṣarā (or Yājña. 2.64), the term prakarşa' in this context (which has been rendered as stipulated time-limit, according to Vivādachintāmaņi and also Vivādaratnākara, p. 33) is to be taken as meaning excess; and the rule would, in that case, mean that— When the profit derived from the Pledge has exceeded the amount of Interest, the Creditor is not entitled to receive the Principal, and the Debtor should receive back the Pledge without any payment; if, however, the Interest has not been exceeded, and the Pledge is not enough to yield the amount of Interest,--then the Debtor cannot receive the Pledge even on paying the Principal; but by mutual consent, the Creditor may restore the Pledge even on the payment of the Principal only'.

·22 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI such cases of Pledge for keeping, in which no time-limit has been stipulated; -the grounds for it being equally present in both cases.* PART (F)--ON SURETY Says Byhaspati (11.39)- [72] “The Surety is of four kinds-(a) for Appearance, (b) for Trust, (c) for Payment of debt, and (d) for Restoring the article, -recognised by the learned as sanctioned by law.' 'Řņē' is to be construed with 'dānē' [so that the two together stand for Payment of Debt].-'Arpana', 'Restoring', here appertains to what has been borrowed for use; that is, when some one has borrowed an article on request, another man says "If this man does not bring back the thing and restore it to you, I shall return it to you’, there is only restoring of the article, not giving of it. In the case of the debt however, there is actual giving by both (the Debtor as well as the Surety). This is the difference between the two kinds of Surety (third and fourth).-The traditional reading, however, is ʻrnidravyārpaņē', which means 'for delivering the assets of the Debtor to the Creditor.t Byhaspati continues (11.40) [73] The first says I shall produce the man; the second says He is good (reliable); the third says I shall pay the debt; the fourth says I shall deliver his assets.' [74] 'In the event of their failure (to produce the Debtor, and to prove his goodness), the first two Sureties should be made to pay the sum lent, at the appointed time; and in the event of their not-agreeing (to pay the debt or to deliver the assets), the last two Sureties should be made to pay; and in the absence of these latter Sureties themselves, their sons also shall be made to pay.' The 'Surety' in connection with law-suits, ordeals and the liko is included among the 'Surety for Appearance and the rest that are inentioned by Kātyāyana. Hence the number is four only. As says Krityāyana- * The meaning is that the Pledge should not be handed over to another person simply because it has remained with the Pledgee for a long time. Ho should continue to use and derive profit from it, till the Principal has becomo doubled and ropsid, when it shall be redeemed. When the doubled Principal has been paid, the Pledge to be used shall cease to be used, and the Pledge to be kept shall bo restorod to the Pledger(Medhatithi). Transference is pledging to a third party.-This rule rofors to both kinds of Pledge, to be used and to be kept. That the transforonce or wala' prohibited hore is that by the Pledgee has been held rightly by the Kalpataru, tho Pārijātu and tho Mitākṣarā.--This rule applies to cases where no time limit has been stipulatod, while Yājñavalkya 2.58—that 'the Pledge becomes forfeited if it is not radiomed on the Principal becoming doubled'-refers to those cuses whero il definite tiina. limit has been stipulateci; hence there is no inconsistency between Manis und Yajnavalkya-(Vivādaratnākara, pp. 31-32). + The reading adopted by Vāchaspati is rmē dravyārpane' in placo of the generally-accepted (traditional' as he calls it) reading 'mi-draviūrpane'. As explained in the text, he takes the third kind of Surety to be ono who vouches for the return of articlos lent for use, such as ornamonts for a fostivity--(Jolly). Vivādaratnākara (p. 40), however, adopts tho‘traditional reading and oxplains it as 'delivering to the Creditor the property of the Debtor'.

·LAW OF DEBTS: SURETY 23 [75] 'The man who has stood Surety (1) for Payment, (2) for Appearance, (3) for Trust, (4) for Suits and Ordeals, should be made to pay the due in the above order,--in case the Debtor fails to pay.' What is meant (by Text 74) is that if the Surety for Trust has declared a man to be reliable' who is not found to be reliable, and if the Surety for Appearance fails to produce the man, he should be made to pay the amount involved *; not the sons of these Sureties. As says Yājñavalkya (2.54) [76] 'If the Surety for Appearance, or the Surety for Trust, has died,--his sons need not pay the debt. But the sons should pay, if the Surety were for Payment.' That is to say, in the case of the man who had stood Surety for (c) payment and for (d) deliverance of assets.- his sons should pay the debt. The Surety for Appearance should be made to pay only on the expiry of the stipulated time for appearance, except when the non-appearance is due to an act of God or of the King. After the time-limit has expired (without the Debtor being produced) by reason of some act of God or of the King, --when the obstacle due to such act has ceased, if the Surety fails to produce the Debtor, through negligence, or the Debtor dies, he should be made to pay. As declared by Kātyāyana [77] 'If the Surety for Appearance fails to produce the Debtor at the stipulated place and time, he should pay the dues to the Creditor; except when the failure is due to an act of God or of the King.If, on the lapse of time,t the Surety fails to produce the Debtor, he should be made to pay the dues; so also if the Debtor dies ; such is the declared law.' Even if the Debtor dies after the lapse of the time granted to the Surety for Appearance for producing the Debtor, that Surety has to pay the debt of the man whom he has failed to produce. Similarly if the Surety for Appearance agreed to become the Surety on having received a Pledge, then his son also should be made to pay. As declared in the following text- [78] 'If a man had stood Surety for Appearance after having taken a Pledge, then on this fact being proved, his son should be made to pay the debt'- (Katyāyana). I What is payable by the son in this case is the Principal only, without Interest; as declared by Vyāsa [79] (a) The son's son should pay, without Interest, his grandfather's debt;-() the son should pay, without Interest, the Surety-money due a * This is the correct explanation of Brhaspati text (No. 74 above); and the same is found in Vivādaratnākara (p. 40). The translation of the text as given by Jolly (Sacred Books of the East. p. 327) is apparently wrong. Under this latter the distinction between 'vitatha' and 'visamvādē' is not brought out. † Vivādaratnākara (p. 42) agrees with the Chintāmani in taking this ‘kālē', ‘time', to mean 'when the obstacle due to the act of God or King has ceased'. Vīramitrodaya (p. 323) takes it as 'the time allowed to the Surety for finding the Debtor'. According to the former explanation "lapse of time in the translation) would mean "lapse of the delay caused by the obstacle due to the act of God or King'. * According to Smộtichandrikā, p. 533, this applies to the case of the Surety for Trust also.

·24 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI from his father; (c) but the sons of these two should not be made to pay these;- such is the settled rule.' * In regard to a case where there are several sureties, Yājñaralkya (2.55) says- [80] 'If there are several sureties jointly bound, they should pay the debt due, in proportion to their shares; but when they are all equally bound severally, any one of them may have to pay the whole, according to the wish of the Creditor.' * Ēkachchhāyā, etc. etc.'-In a case where at the time of the transaction, the Creditor makes the stipulation—The dues shall be realised, at my pleasure, from any one of the Sureties, and I shall not try to bring you together (bind you jointly); then any one of the several Sureties shall pay the entire dues. Ēkachchhāyā' means that each one is equally bound.+ The Surety is to give time for seeking out the wanted Debtor; as says Byhaspati (11.42-43) [81] The Creditor shall allow the Surety time for seeking out the absconding Debtor, -a fortnight, a month, or a month and a half, -according to the distance of the place.- Sureties should not be excessively harassed; they should be made to pay the debt by easy instalments.—When the Surety, who had been made to stand Surety, has, on being harassed, paid the Surety-money,—the Debtor shall pay him twice as much, after the lapse of a month and a half.' I This is easily understood. Similarly, if the Surety has had to undergo other expenses on behalf of the Debtor, the latter has to pay those also; as says Kātyāyana- [82] 'Whatever the Surety, harassed by the Creditor, has had to pay on behalf of a certain Debtor,-he should recover it from him,-if the said payment is proved by witnesses.' The acceptance of the Surety leads to the success of the Creditor's suit; which implies that the Surety has the capacity to meet the demand, if necessary. As says Kätyāyana- [83] 'In regard to any transaction, one should not accept as Surety any person who is unable to pay the amount due to the Oreditor and also an equal amount as fine to the King, and who is not well known.' $ * (a) The son's son is to pay all his grandfather's debts, with the excoption of the Surety-money-says Vīramitrodaya (p. 325). Samam' is without Interest. In both (a) and (b) the payment is to be without Interest; but (a) is not to be paid at all, by the son of the son's son,-and (6) is not payable at all by the son's son-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 44). † When each of them has agreed to pay the whole, any one of thom may bo called upon to pay the whole due ;-when they have guarantnol to pay, cach according to a stipulated share, then the amount paid by them shall bo proportionate to the shares previously agreed upon (Vyavahāra-mangūkha). The same rule applies to sureties for appearance and for trust-says tho Alitūksarā. If the Creditor does not express any wish as to which one Suroty shall pay, then all of them shall pay in equal shares-(Smſtichandrikā, p. 356). * Vivādarathākara (p. 45) has the following notes— Naşta' is the subsconding Debtor.--'Pratibhāvīton-who had been made to stand wilroty. $ This sum is to be recovered without Interest, if it is paid within a nunth and a half; after that, he receives double--(Vivādaratnākara, p. 46).

·LAW OF DEBTS: MANNER OF REPAYING 25 Whether the man is so able or not should be ascertained from the people themselves. PART (G)—THE MANNER OF REPAYING DEBTS Says Brhaspati (11.47) [84] . A loan shall be repaid on demand, if no time has been stipulated.* or on the expiry of the stipulated time-limit, or when interest has ceased. If the Debtor is not alive, it shall be paid by his sons.' What is meant is that-a) in a case where the pleasure of the Creditor has been agreed to by both parties as indicating the time-limit, the debt should be repaid as soon as it is demanded;—(6) in a case where another tim.e-limit has been fixed, it should be repaid on the expiry of that timelimit;-(c) where no sort of time-limit has been fixed, there it should be repaid when the Interest has reached its maximum. [Says Nārada 4.2)— [85] 'On the death of the father, the sons-divided or undivided shall repay his debt, in proportion to their shares; or it may be paid by one who has taken up the burden of management.' † Says Yajňavalkya (2.50)- [86] 'If the father is dead, or gone abroad, or smitten with trouble, the debt should be paid by his sons and grandsons,-if, on denial, it is proved by witnesses. I 6 * The reading adopted is "aprakāla' as in the MSS., and in Vivādaratnākara (p. 47).-The Smrtichandrikā (p. 377), however, reads "alpakāla', and explains it to mean "debt contracted for a short time'. It adds that the points of time here indicated are only to be those where payment must be made; it is not meant to preclude earlier payment. † If the sons are undivided and are living together on equal terms, the payment shall be made by them collectively :-(6) if they are living together, under the arrangement that one of them is the Head of the family, then the payment shall be made by this Head;-(c) if they are divided, the debt shall be paid in proportion to their shares in the Father's property--(Smrtichandrikā, p. 375 and Vīramitrodaya, p. 341). Asahāya explains thus-If the debt contracted by the father has not been repaid during his lifetime, by himself, it must be repaid, after his death, by his sons. Should the sons separate, they shall repay it according to their respective shares. If they remain united, they shall pay it in common, or the Manager of the Property shall pay for all, such Manager being either the seniormost member or a younger member who,-during the absence of the eldest, or on account of his incapacity,- has taken up the management of the family-estate. I'Smitten with trouble’-such as drunkenness and the like.--If the sons and grandsons dispute the validity of the debt, it has to be paid after has been established by evidence adduced.-The implication of this rule is that the liability of the sons and grandsons does not cease even when the father has left no property--(Aparārka). The sons and grandsons have to pay even though they may not have inherited any property from the father. The order of the liability is that in the absence of the father, the son has to pay, and in the absence of the son, the grandson has to pay-(Mitāksarā). (a) If the Debtor has died, his sons shall pay the debt.or his heirs who have inherited his property,-or those conjointly with whom the debt had been contracted, or those who had stood surety; () sons or grandsons or other heirs inheriting the dead man's property shall pay all his debts, whenever and wherever contracted-(Arthashāstra 3.11).

·26 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI In reference to the case where the Debtor has 'gone abroad', Nārada has a special rule- [87] 'If the father or uncle or elder brother has gone abroad, the son (or nephew or the younger brother) is not bound to pay the debt (contracted by him) before the lapse of twenty years.' Thus in Vişnu's text the term 'twice ten years' has to be constried with 'if he is abroad'; it cannot be construed with anything else; as it would be wholly incompatible; as is clear from what Visnu himself says in the following text- [88] 'If the person who contracted the debt is dead, or become a Wandering Mendicant; or if he has remained abroad for twenty years.--that debt shall be paid by his sons and grandsons; not by remoter descendants, if they do not wish to pay :-(6.27-28);- * which means that the great-grandson need not pay it, if he does not wish to do so. [Says Yājñavalkya 2.90) [89] 'A debt covered by a written bond should be paid by descendants up to the third generation. The Pledge is enjoyed until this debt has been paid up.'t Or What is meant (by Text 87 above)—as agreed upon by Ratnākara and others is that~'If the debt has been contracted by the father, uncle, or the elder brother, who have not become separated (who were members of the joint family), -and it is found to be legally valid, it should be paid, after twenty years, by the son (or nephew or younger brother respectively),if the contractor of the debt remains abroad. The view of the author of Smrtisāra, however, is as follows:-If tho separated father or others have contracted the debt for their own sake, and they remain abroad, -the Son or others should pay it; and the restriction of time (after twenty years) is meant for this case. It cannot be moant. for the case where the debt has been contracted by the father or others who are not separated, for the benefit of the family, etc.; because in such cases, the son, nephew and others are as much debtors as the father, etc., as they are all under the same roof (and hence equally bound). It is only in this way that the declaration (after twenty years ') is saved from boing meant for purely supernatural purposes. Thus then the said declaration should be taken as laying down the time (after twonty years') in regard to that case where the repayment by the son and others) is under compulsion, without the person called upon to repay having had anything to do with the contracting of the debt (or benefiting by it). So that the debt that had been contracted for the sake of the joint family, has to be paid even before the lapse of twenty years. That this is the right view is shown by the following text of Yājñavalkya (2.45) ** Twenty years' is to be construed only with remained abroad', not with the other terms.-The sense is that the fourth and lower descendants nood not pay. The qualifying term 'if they do not wish' implies that 'if thoy are desirous' of the spiritual well-being of their great-grandfather and othor reinoter incostors, they should pay the debt contracted by them (Vivāduratnākara, p. 50)). † The statement that 'the liability to pay the debts connes after the grandson' refers to cases not covered by a Pledge, in the shape of lands, etc., givon by tho ancestor. If the debt was taken after having given a Pledde for 148e, it has to be paid by the remoter descendants also-(Vivādaratnākaru, p. 49).

·LAW OF DEBTS : MANNER OF REPAYING 27 [90] • When the debt has been contracted by members of the joint family, for the benefit of the family, it should be paid by the Head of the family and], on his death or remaining abroad, be paid by those who inherit his property.' It cannot (continues the Smrtisāra) be urged that in this case (mentioned by Yajñavalkya) also, they should wait for twenty years. Because there is no authority for this. So that the declaration of the period of time must be taken as referring to the case where the contractor of the debt has been a separated member of the family.-Such is the opinion of the Smrtisāra. In what cases, even when the contractor of the debt is alive, the debt is to be paid (by others), and where there should be no waiting for the lapse of time,-has been thus pointed out by Brhaspati- [91] 'Even when the father is present, if he happen to be blind from birth, or deaf, or insane, or suffering from consumption, leucoderma and such other incurable) * diseases,-his debt, when proved, should be paid by his sons.' If the father has no property and hence is unable to repay the debt,- if the son, or, in his absence, the grandson,-is able to repay, he should repay the debt, if valid; ; -even though he may have been separated from the father. Such is the view of the Pārijāta.t [Says Nārada or Kātyāyana [92] 'If a debt has been contracted by several persons jointly,- each one of them is liable, during his lifetime, to pay the debt due from others also; when they are dead however, their sons are not liable to pay the debt of others (save that due from each one's own father).' That is, from among persons under the same bondage, the one who is living is to pay the debt.I- Says another text (No. 80 above)-'When they are equally bound, any one of them may have to pay the whole, according to the wish of the Creditor.' Again [says Kätyāyana) [93] 'If the debt has been contracted by the father conjointly with others -- it shall be paid in its entirety by the son, if the father remains abroad; if the father is dead, however, the son shall pay only his father's share of the debt, not the debt of others.' As the son is liable to pay also such debts of his father as do not fall under this category (of having been jointly contracted).--all that is meant by this declaration is that the son shall not wait for the lapse of 'twenty years' (as contemplated in texts Nos. 87 and 88). The sense of the present Text (93) is that on the death of the father, the son shall pay only his own * This is the explanation by Pārijāta quoted by Vivādaratnākara, p. 51. † Vivādaratnākāra (p. 51) quotes Pārijāta as explaining the rule to mean that 'If the father is absolutely unable to repay, then the son should repay the debt'. It goes on to state its own view In reality, however, what is meant is as follows:- (a) If the father is suffering from any such disqualifications as render him unable to possess property, and if the son has not had his property partitioned,--then the son shall pay his debts ;-(6) but if the father, even though suffering from the disabilities, still happens to have some personal property of his own, then the debt has to be repaid by himself;--(c) if the father is absolutely unable to pay,-and if the son is able to pay the debt shall be paid by the son. But when all the contractors are dead, their sons are to pay it proportionately to the individual shares,--adds Vivādaratnākara (p. 51).

·28 VIVADACHINTAMANI share of the debt, even though it may have been contracted jointly with others.' Says Kātyāyana [94] 'What has been promised for a religious purpose by a man, whether in comfort or in distress, must be paid. If he dies without paying it, his son should be made to pay it; there can be no doubt, on the point.' In regard to Minors, a special rule is laid down by Närada- [95] 'A minor, even though his own master, is not liable to pay any debts.' And Katyāyana [96] 'On the death of the father, his minor sons shall not be liable to pay his debt; but in due course of time, they should pay it in the proper way *; otherwise, they would dwell in hell. Up to the eighth year of age, the child should be regarded as still in the womb; up to the sixteenth year he should be treated as a 'minor', also called 'Poganda', Boy; above that age, he becomes a major, competent to deal with business and his own master, except for the control of his parents.' † Says Kātyāyana [97] 'That which has been proved, that of which part has been repaid.- such debt of one's grandfather one should pay; but that which is invalid, or has been repudiated by one's father, shall never be paid.' Dretam'--proved, valid.—Sadoşam'-invalid, e.g. debts due to wine, gambling and the like.-Pitrā vāhatam'-repudiated, disputed, by the father. The dispute' or 'repudiation' meant here is one based on some special grounds, not mere ordinary denial. If it were not so, then the freedom from liability would be too wide. Gautama (12.41) lays down the following exception to the son's liability to pay the father's debts- [98] 'Surety-money, commercial debt, fee (bridal), debt contracted for wine or in gambling, and fines,--these shall not involve the sons.' 'Surety-money'-money due on account of standing surety for appearance and for trust. I-Similarly commercial debt' stands for those goods that 6 * The text has been so explained in all Digests; and the right roading tus found in them and also in Ma and Mb is "Nāprāpta, etc., etc.'. What is inoant, says Vivādaratnākara (p. 54), is that-'When the father dies, his minor sons shall not be liable to pay his debts, during their minority; they shall, however, pay it as soon as they attain majority. In the proper way'-i.e. proportionately to their respective shares, or in accordance with the property inherited-says Vivādaratnākara. † This same definition of 'major' and 'minor' is attributed to Nircula in Mitākṣarā on Yājña. 2.50. Taking into account the parallel passages of Manu (8.159-160) and Yījňavalkya (2.47 and 54), Haradatta vory properly restricts this rule to a bail for the porsonal appearance of the offender.-In explanation of the expression commercial clebt', he gives the following instance :-If a person has horrowed monoy from Hornobody on the condition that he is to repay the Principal togother with Interest, and if he dies in a foreign country, while travelling in order to trade, thon that monoy shall not be repaid by the son. The instance explaining the torin "Foe' is as follows:- If a person has promised a fee to the paronts of a girl and dies after the woddling, then that feo does not involve his son; i.e. noed not be paid by hiin.--The word Shulka' in the original is, however, ambiguous; it may also mean "tax or toll- Buhler on Gautama.

·LAW OF DEBTS: MANNER OF REPAYING 29 have become due from the father on account of commercial transactions.. These 'shall not involve the sons'; that is, they shall not be payable by the sons. Says Brhaspati (11.51) [99] 'Debts due to Wines, Gambling, Futile Gifts, Gifts promised through lust or anger, Surety-money, Balance of Fines and Taxes,--these debts of the father the sons shall not be made to pay.'* 'Sauram' is debt due to surā, wine.-'Danda, etc.'- i.e. Fines and Tases, and the balance of these. † So also Vyāsa- [100] ‘Fine or Balance of Fine, Tax or Balance of Tax, and what is not lawful,—such debts of the father, the son should not pay.' 'Na vyāvahārikam' means what is outside the pale of custom or law (what is not admissible in law). I "Gift promised through Love and Anger' is thus defined by Katyāyana- [101] "The gift that has been promised, either with or without a written bond, to woman already married to another man,-should be known as debt contracted through lust.-In a case where, having caused hurt to a person, or destroyed his property, through rage, --if a man has promised to pay for his satisfaction,--that should be regarded as debt contracted through anger.'s Thus th is no undue indefiniteness in the matter. 'Futile gift' also (mentioned in Text No. 99) should be understood to be one that has been promised' (not actually given); otherwise, as it would have been already given, there could be no point in prohibiting its payınent. *"Gifts promised through lust'—i.e. in adulterous love-making.-'Gifts promised in anger -2.g. in a fit of anger, a man damages the property of another man and then in order to placate him, promises a present—(Aparārka, p. 649).—Shulka' has been taken by Haradatta (see above) as fee for the bride'; the Bālombhattī explains it as standing for taxes. † The Mitākşară (on Yājña. 247) says—The mention of 'balance of fines and taxes should not be taken to mean that if the entire fine or tax is due, the son shall have to pay it; as this also is precluded by other texts (e.g. the following Text 100 from Vyāsa).-—'Gifts promised in love or anger as described in Text No. 101 below. What is not proper'-according to A parārka, p. 648.-Smstichandrikā and Varamitrodaya explain it as 'due to wine' ;-Bālambhattī as 'what was not used for the family-Kane notes—The Bombay High Court (I.L.R. 32 Bombay 348) has accepted the meaning to be 'what no decent person or responsible man would incur'; Allahabad (33 All. 472), Madras (37 Mad. 48) and Calcutta (39 Cal. 862) have dissented from the above; Calcutta explaining it as 'what is not lawful, usual or customary, or which is for a cause repugnant to good morals’: Vivādaratnākara (p. 58) says—The mention of Fine' itself implies the balance of Fine' also; and yet the Text adds this latter; which implies that, if the Fine is a very heavy one, it should be paid by the son; but if there is only a small balance left unpaid, that need not be paid. This also implies that if the Fine is a small one, the whole of it need not be paid by the son. § Vivādaratnākara (p. 58) has the following notes on this Text: -Uktam'- promised.--'Likhitvā'-with written bond; muktakam'-without a written bond.-Parapūrva, etc. having promised a gift to another man's wife, and being unable to pay it, the man borrows the required money and pays it; this is the debt that is said to be contracted through lust'.-The term 'parapūrva', 'already married woman', here stands for all such women as are not married to the man himself.- Similarly, when one hurts a man, or destroys his property, and then for rendering full satisfaction to him, borrows money,—this is debt contracted through anger'.

·30 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI 6 Surety-money' is money due from the Surety for trust and the Surety for appearance. In certain cases, even the father's debt need not be paid by the son; as says Nārada- [102] 'Among-(a) the person taking the property, (b) the person taking the wife, and (c) the sons,-it is the person taking the property who should pay the dead man's debts; if there no one taking his property, nor one taking his wife, then the son shall pay his debts; if there is no one taking his property, nor a son,—then the person taking his wife shall pay his debts.' The meaning of the Text is as follows:-Even if the son is entitled to inherit the property, if he happen to be beset with difficulties (disqualifications),--the man who takes his property should be made to pay his debts.-- In the word “strīdhaninoņ', the possessive affix 'ini' is added to the compounded word 'strīdhana'. Hence the meaning is that-if the person taking the wife and the person taking the property are non-existent, the debt is to be paid by the son even though he be beset with difficulties (disqualifications). If the person taking the property and capable son are non-existent, the debt should be paid by the person taking his wife. Hence the two (the son and the person taking the wife) are not to pay if the person taking the property is there.But if the son is incompetent (disqualified), and the person taking the property is non-existent, the person taking the wife should pay the debt.* On this same subject, says Brhaspati also [103] 'If the son is beset with difficulties (disqualifications), the man who takes the property of the dead man pays his debts. If there is no one taking the property, the man who takes his wife pays the debt.' ť So also Kätyāyanan [104] 'The son should be made to pay the father's debts, if he be free from difficulties (and disqualifications), entitled to inherit property and fit to bear the burden; otherwise, the son should not be made to pay it.- If the son is found to be beset with difficulties or a minor, the man who takes the dead man's property should pay his debts; and in the absence of such a man, the man who takes his widow.' * "If the person taking the property is non-existent',--because the man has left no property; similarly if the man taking his wife is non-existent', --becnuso ho has left no wife. Under such circumstances, the debt is to be paid by the son who may be without property and without parents--so says Asahayı. According to Aparārka, (a) the son and other inheritors of the man's property shall pay his debts; (b) in the absence of these, it will be paid by the man who koops his wife; and (c) in the absence of even such a man, it should be paid by tho disipalifiod son who has been excluded from inheritance. Throughout this context, the expression person taking his wife' stands for the man who has received as his wife, the widow-who is still & virgin, mar who, in dire distress, has offered herself to the man-(Mitākṣarā on Yājna. 2.51). † Vivādaratnākara (p. 64) says that in the absence of these two persons, tho debt has to be paid by the son even though he be boset with difficulties and disqualifications. 'Entitled to inherit -i.e. frou froin such clisqualifications as Congenital Blindness and the rest.-"Bear the burden to pay tho dobt(Vivādaratnckar, P. 04).

·LAW OF DEBTS : MANNER OF REPAYING 31 In the absence of both these persons (one taking the property and the other taking the widow), the debt has to be paid by the son;-as declared by Yājñavalkya (2.51) [105] '(A) One who takes the dead man's property should be made to pay his debts; (B) as also the man who has taken his wife; (C) that son is to pay the father's debts whose property does not rest with another person; (D) if the man has left no son, his debts shall be paid by those who inherit his property.' From all this it follows that even when the son is quite competent, he should be made to pay the debt only if his property does not rest with another person; which means that from among the several sons of the dead man, that son alone should pay the debt who has been installed in the father's place, -not any other son.-The upshot of all this is as follows-(a) Even when the person taking the property and the person taking the wife are there, the debt is to be paid by the son who is possessed of property and capable of bearing the burden;—(6) if there is no such son, it will be paid by the man taking the dead man's property;-(c) in the absence of the man taking his property, as before, even if the son is there, the debt will be paid by the man taking the widow;-(d) when both of these (the man taking the property and the man taking the widow) are not there, the family debt shall be payable by the son, even though he may be 'incompetent'.* If, among the sons, any one is installed in the place of the father, then he alone should pay. * There has been some difference of opinion on the exact meaning of this rule laid down by Yājñavalkya (2.51). According to Aparārka, there are three distinct rules laid down here--(1) The man inheriting the dead man's property should pay his debts ;—such 'inheritors' being the son, the secondary son, the wife, the daughter and so forth; but the liability of the primary son having been already asserted in 2.50, the 'inheritors' here intended must be the secondary son and the rest. (2) If there is no one who has inherited the dead man's property, then the man who has taken his widow should pay the dead man's debts. (3) The liability of sons having been declared under 2.50 in a general way, the third rule here laid down makes a distinction between two sets of sons; there is the son in the normal condition who naturally inherits the father's property; then, in certain cases, there is also a son who, by reason of congenital idiocy, blindness or such other disqualifications, has been excluded from inheritance, and therefore has no property of his own; the meaning of the third rule is that 'among sons, the liability lies with that son who has property of his own and whose inheritance does not like that of the disqualified son) rest with his brothers. (4) The liability of grandsons to pay the grandfather's debts having been asserted in 2.50, people might be led to think that the grandson is to pay even when the sons are there; in order to preclude this idea, the fourth rule is laid down that-'it is only when there is no son, that the other inheritors of property are liable to pay the debt'.-Of rule (3), Aparārka supplies another explanation, by which the meaning is that 'that son who (being among those secondary sons who are not entitled to inheritance) bas not inherited the father's property shall pay the debt; but this is so only when no 'taker of wife' or 'inheritor of property is there. According to Mitāksarā also, the meaning is that-(1) The inheritor of property should pay;—(2) if there is no such inheritor, the man who has taken the wife should pay :-(3) if there is no such man, then the son 'whose paternal property does not go to another,-i.e. one who, if there were any paternal property, would not be debarred from inheriting it by reason of congenital disqualifications. According to this, all these three form parts of one rule, laying down the order of the liability.-(4) The last rule—'If the man has died leaving no son, etc.'-means that, if the man has left no son or grandson, the great-grandson and the rest shall be liable to pay his debts; only if they have inherited his property, not otherwise. The case of the great-grandson and others thus differing from that of the son and the grandson who are liable even though they may have inherited nothing from the dead man.

·32 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Like the son, other persons also may be liable for the debt; as declared by Nārada [106] 'If a debt had been contracted for the purposes of the family, by an unseparated uncle or (unseparated) brother, or by the mother,-it shall be payable by all those who inherit the property.' Says Manu (8.167) [107] 'Should even a dependant effect a transaction for the purposes of the family, the master-whether in his own country or abroad, shall not repudiate it.' * Byhaspati (11.50) [107A] 'When a debt has been incurred for the purposes of the family, by an uncle, brother, son, wife, slave, pupil or dependant,-it should be paid by the Head of the family.' Inasmuch as the debt contracted by the slave and such people also are payable, such debt, incurred for the purposes of the family, should be paid by the man who has inherited the property (of the dead man); in accordance with the declaration (under Text 90 above) that when debts have been contracted by members of a joint family, for the purposes of the family, they should be paid by the Head of the family; and, upon his death or on his going abroad, by those who inherit his property ' -Yājñavalkya 2.45). Certain debts incurred by the son also are payable by the father- [108] 'A debt contracted by the son shall be paid by the father only when it has been approved by him; or he may pay it out of his love for his son; he is not liable otherwise -(Nārada). Says Visņu (6.31-32) [109] The woman shall not pay the debt contracted by her husband or her son; the husband and the son shall not pay the debt contracted by the woman.' And Nāradam [110] 'A debt contracted by the wife shall not involve the husband, except when it has been contracted in times of distress; because the needs of the family are unavoidable. This non-liability of the husband does not apply in the case of debts incurred by the wives of washerinen, Inintors, herdsmen and liquor-distillers; because the livelihood of those mon is dependent upon their wives, and the family is dependunt upon these.' Vishwarūpa takes the third sentence regarding tho son to refer to the caso where, from among several sons, one is permitted by tho others to tako all the property that the father has left; and in this case the debt has to be paid by that one son, not by the others. Vivādaratnākara (p. 63) takes the third rule to apply to casos where the dead man has left no property; in which case the debt falls upon such of his sons as would have inherited his property if any, and not those who wouli not bo so entitled; the reason that is given for restricting the rule to such casok is that the case of the man who has left some property is already covorod by the first rule that the debt is to be paid by the porson who inherits his property. During the master's absence, whatover the servant doos for the maintenance of the family, must be held to be valid (Medhatithi). Dependant'-slave and the like-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 55).

·LAW OF DEBTS 33 Similarly also in cases where the woman is the predominant factor in the family, and no significance is to be attached to the particular castes mentioned here. Because in all such cases, it is the woman who manages everything; and the man is ignorant of the whole business. All this, therefore, is a mere matter of detail; because, in reality, if a debt has been incurred for the purposes of the family, even by the wife of the Brāhmaṇa and others (not named in the text),--it shall be paid by the Head of the family. In other cases, the debt that is payable by the wife is thus declared by Yājñavalkya (2.49) -- [111] "The wife shall pay the debt contracted by the husband, if she has accepted * the liability; as also that contracted by her jointly with her husband.' Kätyāyana says- [112] [The woman shall pay the debt] contracted conjointly with her husband or her son, and also that contracted by herself.' And Nārada- [113] “The woman should not pay the debt contracted by her husband or by her son. If the husband, on the point of death, has asked his wife to pay his debts, she should be made to pay them if she has taken his assets, even though she may not have promised to pay them.' The rule briefly is as follows:-(a) If the woman has been made by her husband to promise that she would pay the debts,—then she must pay them;-(b) similarly, if she has no sons and has taken the family-assets, she should pay the debt, even though she may not have promised to pay it; for the simple reason that she has taken the assets. Who is the person taking the wife' (of the deceased Debtor) is thus defined by Nārada- [114] The last kind of the Wanton Woman and the first kind of the Remarried Woman,--the debt contracted by the deceased husbands of these should be paid by the man who has taken the widow'.-When a man has died leaving no property or son, if a man takes his wife, he takes up his debts also; as his wife is the dead man's sole asset.' † Who the 'last kind of Wanton Woman' is has been thus described in the Kalpataru (quoting Nārada) [115] When a woman, who has been already given away by her elders in accordance with the laws of the country, if she is married to another man, in a wrongful manner, she is the last kind of Wanton Woman'- (12.52). Another kind of Wanton Woman is thus described in Ratnākaram [116] The woman who having come from a foreign cour try has been bought with money,--or being oppressed by hunger and thirst has given * Accepted'—This refers to a case where the promise has been made to the husband on his death-bed, or on going abroad, that she would pay his debts- (Mitākşarā). † According to Vivādaratnākara (p. 62) this refers to the case of womendistillers and others of that class, as expressly stated by Kātyāyana in another text, where the said persons are named. 3 ·34 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI 2 herself to a man, saying I am thine, --she is the third * kind of Wanton Woman'-(12.51). The first kind of Remarried Woman is thus described in Ratnākara- [117] 'A maiden, who has not been deflowered, but has become unqualified for marriage by reason of the rites of joining hands having been gone through,-if married to another man, is the first kind of Remarried Woman (12.52). Only these two kinds of women "taken up by other men have been mentioned in Text 114 above) because these are considered superior tu others (mentioned in Nārada 12.45–52). And the rule is that the man who has taken up these widows shall pay the debt contracted by their deceased husbands. Says Katyāyana- [118] "The debt that has been contracted by wine-clistillers and the like, who have no assets and no children, shall be paid by one who enjoys their wives.' The term "and the like' is to be understood as including inen whose livelihood depends upon their wives. Kātyāyana again [1191 'Debts incurred by persons who have long been away from home, or are devoid of all relations, or are idiots, or insane,--shall be paid.- even though they themselves be alive-by those who have taken their wives or assets.' In this connection, the debts payable by those taking the assets and others are exactly those that would be payable by the sons (if there were any); but with this difference that in the case of those others, no Interest shall be payable, because the paying of the Interest has not been mentioned in connection with those, as it has been in connection with the son (in Text No. 84, for instance). In the case where the Creditor is a Brāhmaṇa and he has died without issue, what is to be done is thus doclared by Nārada- [120] 'If a debt is due to a Brāhmaṇa with progeny,tsind ho, with his progeny, is no longer alive,--the debt shall be repaid to his Sakulyas; in the absence of Sakulyas, to his Bandhus; when there are no Sakulyas or Bāndhavas, it shall be paid to Brāhmaṇas; and when there are no Brāhmanas, it shall be thrown into water.' Under similar circumstances, the debt due to thu Ksaltriya and others is to be received by the King; as it has been declared that all proporty goes to the King, except the property of the Brāhmana',--so that the property of the Brāhmana should not be taken by the King. When the payment of the debt has boen demanded, and the Debtor has not paid it, what should the Cruditor do ? This has been this answered by Manu (8.48 and 49) * In Narada's text, and also in Vivüdorulnākuri, p. 62, wo find the roading “trtīyā' in place of chaturthi'. † Tho reading in Vivādachintämani is 'sānvaujalya'; Smstichandrikā, p. 25, reads 'sonvayasya'; which provides simplor construction. The inoaning is tho same in both cases.

·LAW OF DEBTS 35 [121] "Having determined the means by which the Creditor may be able to get his money, he shall, by those same means, make the Debtor pay up--(48). He shall have his dues paid by means of (a) good faith, (6) tactful transaction, (c) trick, (d) moral pressure, and (e) force -(49).* From among these, the Creditor shall have recourse to the succeeding only if he is unable to do it by means of the preceding method. (a) What is meant by dharma' (good faith) in this connection (in Manu's text) has been explained by Byhaspati (11.55) [122] "When the Debtor is made to pay by messages through friends and relations, by friendly remonstrances, by constant following, or by fasting,—this is realising by Good Faith.' ‘Prāya' stands for the Creditor threatening to fast till the payment of the debt. [123] The Brāhmaṇa, however, who has been reduced in circumstances, should be made to pay by easy instalments, according as he obtains the means ' -Yājña. 2.43). (6) What is meant hy'vyavahāra' (Tactful Transaction) is thus explained hy Katyāyana- [124] "The Debtor should be caught and held up openly before the assembly of men, until he pays up the dues, according to the custom of the country.' (c), (d) and (c) 'Chhadma' (Trick), 'Acharita' (Moral Pressure) and 'Bala' (Force) have been thus described by Brhaspati- [125] 'When the creditor, with a crafty design, borrows anything from the Debtor, or withholds a Deposit and such things, and thus makes him pay up the debt,-this is called realising by a Trick'-(11.56). Upadhi' is trick. He goes on- G (a) 'Good faith'-i.e. realising by easy instalments.-—(6) Taclful transaction' --this has to be had recourse to when the Debtor has no property; the idea is that the Creditor may make a further advance to him, to enable him to carry on some business and thereby acquire money wherewith to pay off the debt; this is what is meant by 'vyavahāra' here; which cannot stand for judicial proceedings; as these have to be had recourse to only where all the said five means have failed.-(a) Trick -borrowing an ornament or some such article from him under some pretext and then retaining it until the debt is paid.-(d) 'Moral pressure'--fasting and constantly sitting at the man's door.-(e) Force'--making an application to the King who shall summon the Debtor and compel him to pay up.-The Creditor shall not have recourse to either Trick or Moral Pressure without notifying the same to the King—(Medhātithi). Vyavahāra', according to Smrtichandrikā, is meant for the Debtor who has denied the liability; the others are meant for one who admits the debt. Evidently it takes vyavahāra' in the sense of judicial proceedings.Govindaraja, Kulluka, Nandana and Nārāyaņa also takoʻvyavahāra' as judicial proceedings; Raghavānanda takes it as forced sale of property.-Aparārka (p. 646) takes dharma' as truth, "vyavahāra' as evidence documentary and oral; charita' as local custom; "bala' as oppression by starving, etc.--Mitāksarā (on Yājña. 2.40) takes 'dharma' as truthful persuasion.-vyavahāra' as adducing witnesses, documents, etc. (i.e. judicial pro.' ceedings),-'chhala' as above,_'ācharita' as starvation, etc. and bała' as force, in the shape of keeping him in chains and so forth. Mitākşarā (on Yăjña. 2.40) reads 'acharita' for 'acharita' and explains it as 'dropping all social intercourse, like dining and the like'.

·36 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI [126] 'When the Debtor is made to pay by confining his wife, son or cattle, and by constantly sitting at his door,-it is called Acharita. Moral Pressure(11.58). [127] "When the Debtor is bound and brought up to the Creditor's own house, where he is compelled to pay by beating and other means, it is called Bala, Force -(11.57). In all cases, the proper course is to request the Debtor to pay up. Says Kätyāyana- [128] 'From the King, the Master and the Brāhinana, one should realise his dues by means of moral suasion; from his heir and friend, one should realise it hy means of trick.' He proceeds [129] ‘From traders, cultivators and artisans, one should realise his dues in accordance with the custoins of the place (or Moral Pressure];--and from wicked persons, he should do it by means of force;- so says Bhrgu.' As regards the case where even keeping the Debtor under restraint does not bring about the payment of one's dues ---Brhaspati says-- [130] "The indigent spirit-distiller and such other Debtors should be taken by the creditor to his own house and made to work there; but a Brāhmana should be made to pay gradually.' Says Yājñavalkya (2.43)- [131] "If the Debtor of a low caste happens to be too poor to pay, he should be made to make good, by labour, the amount due from him; but the Brāhmaṇa reduced to poverty should be made to pay by casa instalments, according to his income.' * If the Creditor has recourse to 'force', before trying the other methods, he should be punished; as says Kātyāyanam [132] 'If, at the very outset, the Creditor should make the man to do nean work which has not been stipulated, the should suffer the First Amercement, and the Debtor should be absolved from the debt.' What is meant is that-if, at the very outsot, the Creditor makes the Debtor do some mean work for the purpose of liquidating the cut-then he should be fined the First Amercementand the Debtor should be absolved from the debt. Brāhinana', according to Aparārka, stands for the 'higher custo' in goneral; cases whero the Debtor's caste is higher than that of the Creditor; and then torn 'low caste' includes the equal caste also.-The ‘labour', says Mitālscrī, shoull be work in keeping with the man's caste, which can be done by him without clotrinont to his family-status. † We have adopted the reading of the printed toxt, which agroos with the reading found in Vivādaratnākara (p. 71). Mb reads the first lino us judi hyjādar halādistamashubham', which micans if the Croditor at the vory outsot should, by force, make the man do mean work, etc.'--Ma roads—'yadi vidau balālistam rīkam karma kārayet'-'If, at the very outset, the Croditor, by forco, inakos tho Debtor do the work desired by the Croditor, etc.'.

·LAW OF DEBTS 37 Says Närada- [133] 'If, on account of changed times, the Debtor is unable to pay up, he should be made to pay gradually according to his capacity, as he goes on obtaining the necessary funds.' * In a case where the Debtor is unable to pay the debt which, along with the Interest, has reached the maximum,--the Debtor himself should execute a bond on the basis of Compound Interest. As says Brhaspati (11.60)— [134] 'When the time fixed for payment has elapsed, and Interest has ceased to accrue,--the Creditor should recover the loan; or the Debtor may execute a bond, on the basis of Compound Interest.' After the accrued Interest, along with the original Principal, has become the new Principal,--more than double may be realised, even in the case of Pledge for Use, where the Interest consists in the use of the article pledged; as says Brhaspati (11.61) [135] 'Just as Compound Interest is charged on the doubled Principal, so is the use of the Pledge also; in which case the new debt (Principal) should consist of the price of the Pledge along with the Interest accrued.' † What happens in the case of the Debtor not being there, has been thus declared by Brhaspati (11.29-30) [136] “When the amount of the Principal has become doubled, and the Dehtor is either dead or lost,I the Oreditor may take his chattel and sell it before witnesses; or he may have its value estimated in an assembly of people and keep the chattel for ten days; after which he may realise his own dues, and relinquish the balance.-After having got his own dues precisely calculated by people versed in accounts, if the Creditor takes the chattel in the presence of the relations $ (of the Dehtor), he should not be regarded as having done anything wrong.' Even when the Creditor realises his dues by 'force' and other such means,-he should not be reproved by the King. As says Vişnu (6.18) [137] 'A Creditor recovering the sum lent, by any means, should not be reproved by the King.' * By any means-i.e. by the several means of 'Good Faith' and the rest (enumerated by Manu, see Text 121 above). * Smrtichandrikā (p. 389) restricts this concession to the Brāhmaṇa Debtor only (vide Text 131 above). * In a case where Compound Interest is charged, the old Principal along with the Interest accrued becomes the new Principal, which is more than the double of the original Principal. Similarly in the case of the use of the Pledge also, if, by chance the creditor has been able to enjoy it,--the value of that use along with the original Principal is made the new Principal and held by the Creditor on Interest; so that ultimately the enjoyment by the Creditor becomes more than the double of the original Principal. Or, if he so chooses, he may not restore the pledged article -(Vivādaratnäkora, p. 72). Jolly says that the comparison here proposed relates to the case when a Pledge for Use has been accidentally destroyed, and a new bond is executed, in which the Interest is calculated on the Principal together with the lost usufruct. 'Lost-i.e. if he has absconded and cannot be traced—(Vivādaratnākara, p. 74). Relatives' --what is meant is that the witnesses to the transaction should be persons who would be trusted by the Debtor-(Ibid.).

·38 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Says Yājravalkya (2.40) [138] 'If the Creditor presses the Debtor who has admitted the debt, he should not be prevented by the King. On being pressed, if the Debtor complains to the King, he should be punished and made to pay the deht due.' * Pratipanna'-the person who has admitted the debt. If the Debtor does not admit the debt and if he claims judicial investigation, he shall not be pressed (or put under restraint). As says Brhaspati (11.63)- [139] 'A Debtor claiming judicial proceedings, in a doubtful case, should not be pressed. One who presses one who should not be pressed, deserves to be fined according to law. A Debtor is called one “claiming judicial proceedings", if he makes a declaration in the form— "What may be found to be justly due from me, I shall pay". A case is called "doubtful” in which there is difference of opinion * between the two parties, as to (a) the nature. (b) the amount, (c) the Interest, or (d) if there is anything due at all.' Says Manu (8.59) [140] 'One who falsely denies a debt, or one who falsely demands it, these two, proficient in dishonesty, should be made by the King to pay a fine double the amount involved.' This should be understood as applicable to cases where the person penalised is very wealthy. Again [141] 'On the debt being admitted to be due, the Debtor shall pay a fine of 5 per cent; and in the case of denial, double the amount. Such is the ordinance of Manu'-(Manu 8.139). When the Dehtor has denied the debt at first, but admits it later on, his fine shall be 5 per cent. If he continues to deny it even later on, then, on the debt being proved, he should be fined 10 per cent. † This rfers to cases where the person penalised is possessed of little wealth. Yājňavalkya (2.11)- [142] 'If the Debtor denies the debt, and it is proved, he shoull pay the amount due and also a sum equal to the sum in clispute to the King. If the claim of the Creditor is found to be false, le should pay a fine double the amount of the claim.' * The word in the original is 'bhrānti', which means mistake or doubt; it has, however, been explained by Vivādaratnākara (p. 76) as 'vipratipatti' and has accordingly been translated by Jolly as 'difference of opinion'. + The Debtor having failed to pay the debt, the Creditor files a suit against him;—the Debtor, on being summoned, admits the claim and is ready to pay up; in this case the penalty is a small one, fine of 5 per cent, which is imposed on account of his having transgressed the law in not paying up out of Court;- but when he aggravates it further and denies it, and the creditor succeeds in proving it, the penalty is double-i.e. 10 per cent; not the double of the annount of the debt, as some people have explained-(Medhātithi). This rule of Yājñavalkya's conflicts with the one laid down by Manu (Text 141, above), where the penalty is only 5 and 10 per cent of the total claim. The Chintamani has solved the difficulty by relating Manu's rule to the use of poor Debtors and Yājñavalkya's to the case of middle-class Debtors.

·LAW OF DEBTS 39 [143] This is the law relating to either of the two parties who is defeated in a regular confutation of the suit; so also relating to either of the two parties in a case based upon a Previous Decision.' * The law herein laid down is applicable to the case of false suits and also to that covered by a Previous Decision. Says Yama- [144] 'If the Debtor, who is wealthy, does not pay the debt through sheer wickedness, the King should realise from him a fine double the amount of the sum in dispute and compel him to pay off the debt.' And Visnu (8.20-21)-- [145] 'If the Creditor should approach the King and prove his claim. the Debtor shall pay to the King, as fine, the tenth part of the claim; and the Creditor, on receiving his dues, shall pay to the King the twentieth part of his claim.' † Says Katyāyana- [146] 'Where several debts have become payable at the same time, that which was contracted first should be paid first; but that due to the Kșattriya should be paid after the payment of that due to the Vedic Scholar.' [147] 'If several debts have been contracted on the same day, the Debtor's assets are to be divided equal among the Creditors; the balance, if any, shall be either kept in deposit or distributed as Interest, according to the priority of the claims.' [148] 'If a Creditor proves that the Debtor invested in merchandise the money borrowed from him, then the proceeds of the sale of that merchandise shall go towards the payment of that particular debt, not otherwise.' What is meant is that, in the absence of other assets, the said proceeds shall be given to that same Creditor. Yajñavalkya (2.94)- [149] 'Having paid off the debt, the Debtor should tear off the bond; I or for the purpose of acquittance, he should have another document executed (by the Creditor, by way of acquittance-receipt).-The debt that has been contracted before witnesses should be discharged also in the presence of witnesses.' ş * Text 143 is not Yājñavalkya's. It may be Vyasa's; as remarked by Vivādaratnākara (p. 78)These two texts-one from Yājñavalkya and the other from Vyāsamare not found in this section of the Kāmadhēnu; but they have been quoted here as found in Kalpataru. † The Creditor has committed no wrong; he pays this, therefore, to the King, not as fine, but as fee for helping him in the realisation of his dues-(Vivādaratnākara, This second alternative is meant for cases where the original bond cannot be found and hence cannot be torn off-(says Smrtichandrikā, p. 377). $ If the original witnesses before whom the debt had been contracted are not available, the repayment may be made in the presence of other suitable witnesses- (says Smrtichandrikā, p. 377). p. 78).

·CHAPTER II On Deposits Says Närada (2.1) [150] 'When a man, through confidence, entrusts his property to another person, without any misgivings, it is called, by the learned, 'Niksēpa', Deposit; which forms a Title of Law.' Manu (8.179) [151] "The wise man shall entrust a Deposit to one who is born of good family, is endowed with character, cognisant of the Law, and truthful, has a large following and is wealthy and honourable.' 'Mahāpaksa' is one who has a large number of relatives. Yājñavalkya (2.65) [152] 'When something is placed in a receptacle without being disclosed and is handed over as such to another person, it is called Upanidhi, Sealed Deposit, and it should be restored exactly in the saine condition.' † Nārada (12.5)- [153] "The Deposit is of two kinds—(1) with witnesses, and (2) without witnesses; the restoring of it should be in the same way; otherwise a Surety should be provided.' "Otherwise'-.e. if the Deposit is not restored, the Depositary should provide a Surety. [154] "The sin of those who consume, or spoil hy negligence, a bailed Deposit is as great as that of a woman who injures her husband, or of a man who kills his own son or friend '-(12.7). [155] 'It is best not to accept a Deposit; but destroying it (after receiving it) is disgraceful. After having received it, one should keep it with care and restore it when it is asked for even once :-(12.8). H. W * There are five heads under which this Deposit has been dividod-(1) Open Deposit-Niksepa proper --when the depositor hands over the articles oponly to the Depositary, after counting it;—(2) Upanidhi, Sealed I)cposit-when the property is handed over covered and sealed within a box without the contents being disclosed or described or counted ;-(3) 'Nyāsa', Trust,--that Deposit which is hauled over, not to the Depositary personally, but to his son or othors with the roquest that it should be delivered to the master when he comes home;-(4) . Pachita', Borrowed, when an ornament or some such small article is borrowed for a special occasion;- (5) 'Anvāhita', Bailment for Delivery,---when a Deposit ontrustod to a porsoll is made over to a third party for being delivered to the original owner. According to Yajña. 2.67, the rules relating to Niksepa, Deposit in general, are applicable also to the other kinds of Deposits. (See Hindu Law in It's Sources, Vol. I, pages 224-225.) † Without being disclosed'-i.o.its naturo, numbor, size and other characteristics not being made known to the Depositary.--Exactly in the saine position i.e. sealed—(Aparārka). Vāsana', Receptacle--such as a casket or a box-(Virādaratnūlauru, p. 84).

·ON DEPOSITS 41 So also Brhaspati (12.9) [156] 'The Depositary shall restore the Deposit exactly as it had been entrusted to him, in the same manner and to the same person; it should never be restored to the Depositor's next of kin.' “Next of kin'i.e. the son and others. Says Manu (8.186) [157] 'Tf, on the death of the Depositor, the Depositary himself (without being asked) restores it to the Depositor's next of kin,-he should not be prosecuted by the King or by the relatives of the Depositor.' * And Nārada [158] 'If the Deposit has been destroyed along with the Depositary's property, the loss is the Depositor's; so also if the loss has been due to an act of God or King; except when it has been due to the dishonesty of the Depositary.' What is meant is that the loss is of the Depositor alone; that even when the loss has been due to an act of the King-if it has been brought about by some fraud committed by the Depositary,—it has to be made good by the latter. Thus the principle is that if the loss has been due to a fault of the Depositary, he should restore it;-jf he has not been at fault, he should not have to restore it; -similarly if he has been dishonest, he should restore it,-if he has not been dishonest, he should not have to restore it. This is what is meant by Manu also (8.189) [159] 'If the Deposit has been stolen, or washed away by water, or burnt, -the Depositary shall not have to make good the loss; if he has not extracted anything from it.' That is, if the Depositary has extracted something from the Deposit, and deposits the remnant somewhere else,—with the motive that he may not have to restore the Deposit at all,—then he shall be made to restore the entire Deposit. With reference to the ‘Yāchitaka', 'Borrowed',--the fourth kind of Deposit-vide footnote under Text 150)-says Kātyāyana- [160] 'On the lapse of the stipulated time, or after the completion of the business (for which the article had been borrowed)--if the borrower does not restore it, even on being asked to do so, then, in the event of its being lost or stolen, the borrower should pay its price.' What this means is as follows:- When the article has been borrowed for the purpose of a certain business, on the accomplishment of that purpose, or after the lapse of the stipulated time, --if the owner of the article asks the borrower to return it, but the latter does not restore it,—then, after that, if the thing becomes destroyed by an act of King or God, the borrower must restore the loan by paying its price. * Says Vivādaratnākara (p. 87)—'On the death of the Depositor, if the Depositary restore the Deposit to his heir, he should not be harassed by the King or by the dead Depositor's relatives. The term svayameva, himself, implies that during the Depositor's lifetime, the Depositary should not deliver it to the heir, even though asked to do so, by the latter;-but that on the Depositor's death, he may deliver it to his heir, even without being asked to do so'.

·42 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Nārada (2.14) also [161] 'This same rule has been applied to cases of—(a) Loan for a special purpose' (Vāchitaka), (b) 'Bailment for Delivery' (Anvähita), etc., and also (c) Articles made over to artists, (d) Sealed Deposits (Upanidhi), (e) Secret Deposits (Nyāsa), and (f) Mutual Deposits (Pratinyāsa).' * 'In regard to even an old-standing Deposit, when a man wishes to hide or deny it, he throws into it something of his own, and when he restores it, on request, he is not regarded as a thief; but if he does not restore it, he is regarded as a thief. In all such cases, the right decision can be arrived at only after due investigation.' This passage has been written in this context, in the Ratnūkara.† Says Brhaspati (12.11) - [162] 'If the Depositary should destroy (damage) the Deposit, through discrimination (as between his own property and the Deposit) and consequent neglect, -or if he fails to restore it when asked to do so, he should be made to pay its price with Interest.' That is, if the man differentiates his own property from the Deposit, taking special care of the former, and not of the latter, then also he should pay it. Similarly in a case where, on being asked to deliver the Deposit, he did not do so, -and after some time, he is arrested by the King, --he should pay the price with Interest. As says Närada (2.7-8) - [163] 'If the Depositary does not restore the Deposit on demand, he should be fined by the King, and in case the Deposit has been lost, he should be made to pay a sum equal to the price of the Deposit. [164] 'If he derives profit from it (by using it) without the Depositor's consent, he shall be fined likewise, and shall deliver the profit, together with Interest, to the Depositor.' And Vyäsa- [165] 'If the Deposit has been consumed, the Depositary should pay its price with Interest; if it has suffered from noglect, he should pay just the price; if it has been lost through stupidity, le shoull pay a little less.' Says Manu (8.193) [166] The man who would appropriate, by fraudulent moans, the property of another person, should be punished publicly, along with his accomplices, with various modes of corporeal punishment.' * 'Articles made over to the artist'-i.e. materials given to him to bo worked upon; e.g. gold delivered to the goldsmith for making the ear-ring.Nyarı' is secret Deposit; handed over to some member of the family, without the knowledgo of the Master of the house.-- Pratinyāsa' is a mutual bailment, both partios exchanging Deposits with one another-(Vivādaratrākarn, p. 96). See also the first footnote of this chapter. † No such passage is found in Vivūclaratnākara; nur is it intelligible. | Vivādaratnākara (p. 90) explains this as against the wishes of the Depositor'.

·ON DE POSITS 43 • Upadha' is fraud.—'Accomplice'people who help him in the act of misappropriation Corporeal punishment'-such as being put in chains, beaten and so forth.* This same rule applies to other similar transactions also; as says Brhaspati (12.15) [167] 'The rules laid down above are applicable also to cases of–Bailment for Delivery, Loan for a Special Purpose, Articles made over to artists, Pledges and Persons seeking refuge.' Articles made over to artists'-when, for the purpose of making ornaments and things, gold and other metals are made over to artists. When such articles are misappropriated 'by fraudulent means', the punishment is to be as declared (above, by Manu). [Says Kātyāyana) - [168] 'When an artist has undertaken to repair an article within a stipulated time,-if ſhe keeps it beyond that time, and] the article becomes lost, he should be made to pay for it; even when the loss may have been due to an act of God.' What is meant is that the article becomes due from the artisan only after the lapse of the time stipulated for the work,-not before that. Says Manu (8.191)- [169] 'One who does not restore a Deposit, and one who, without having made a Deposit, claims it.-both of them shall be punished like thieves, or be made to pay a fine equal in value to the Deposit in question.' In this same text, the Matsyapurāņa reads "dvigunam damam' (“the fine is to be double the value of the Deposit). The penalty herein laid down (by Matsyapurāņa) is meant for cases where the culprit is very rich and of mean behaviour; while that prescribed by Alanu is for the culprit who is poor, but of good behaviour.f Kātyāyana- [170] 'In cases where another man's property, in the shape of Deposit and the like, has been consumed or neglected or destroyed through ignoranceit has to be made good by that same person who was liable for the same.' The term "ēva', 'same', serves to exclude the Depositary's son or other relatives who were not involved in the fault. Gautama (12.42)-in continuation of the words 'na adhyāvayēyuħ', shall not involve'-says- [171] Deposits, Articles bailed for delivery, Articles borrowed for a special purpose, and Articles taken on hire and the rest,-if lost,-[shall not involve] all those men who cannot be blamed for the fault of the Depositary.' * In the case of Deposits, the 'fraudulent means' would consist in putting off the restoration by such pretexts as -I do not remember where I kept the thing' or 'it was kept by someone else who is not here at present', and so forth-(Medhatithi). 'Prakāsham'-.g. in the public square—(Divādaratnākara, p. 92). † Vivādaratnākara (p. 91)-If the property involved is valuable, then alone should the 'punishment of the thief' be inflicted; in ordinary cases, the man should be simply fined; in either case, the Depositary is to be made to restore the Deposit.

·44 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Avakrītam' stands for what has been taken on lease at a certain rent. - All those men'- i.e. sons and others who are free from all blame in the matter. With reference to Sealed Deposits (Upanidhi), says Kūtyāyana- [172] '(a) Purchase, (b) Deposit on behalf of a person gone abroad, (c) Pledge, (d) Bailment for Delivery, (e) Article borrowed, and (f) What has been lent with a commercial motive,--all this is to be treated as Upanidhi, Deposit. (a) 'Kraya:-the article that has heen sold but has, somehow, been left in the hands of the seller;(6) the Deposit made by some one while the owner of the article has been abroad ;-(f) What has been lent with a commercial motive'-i.e. what has been handed over with a view to profit.-(d) 'Anvāhita' -Counter-deposit;--what is meant is that all these cases, the guarding, restoring, investigation and inflicting of punishment, have to he done as in the case of 'Nyāsa', Deposit in general.† > * Vivādaratnākara (p. 89) cites the example of the Cart and such things.--All mon'-i.e. sons, grandsons and other heirs. Who cannot be blamed'-who are free from all blame in the matter. + The definition of 'Upanidhi' here provided by Katyāyana is different from, and much wider than the one accepted by all other authorities; that is, if the words of Katyāyana are taken literally. Both Vivādachintāmaņi and Vivādaratnākara felt this discrepancy; hence they have provided a somewhat different explanation of the text, which has been adopted above, in the translation. According to Vivādaratnākara Proșitaniksēpa stands for what has beon doposited by a man going abroad ; -Vaishyavrttyārpīta.' is what has been made over for purposes of trade. It concludes—*All these have to be treated as l'panidhi (Scaled Deposit)'.

·CHAPTER III Sale without Ownership Vārada—[This is really Manu 8.1991 [173] 'If a gift or a sale has been made by one who is not the owner of the property concerned, it should be held to be as not-made; such being the rule of judicial proceedings.' And Kätyāyana- [174] 'Sale, Gift, Pledge-if made by one who is not the owner,--should be annulled.' Wanu (8.197-198) [175] ' If a man sells another man's property, without being its owner, and without the owner's consent, he should not be treated as reliable; he being a thief, though not regarding himself as such.--If he belongs to the 'family' of the rightful owner, he should be made to pay the fine of Six Hundred ; and if he does not belong to his family', nor one having access (to the household), he shall be dealt with as having committed the crime of theft.' Sākşya' is reliability.-'Avahāryaḥ'--should be made to pay- * Sānvayah-being a member of the race of the owner of the property in question. *m_Niranvayaḥ -one who is not a member of his race.-- Anapasarah-having no plausible means of getting at the thing in question, such as receiving it as a gift and so forth. He should be fined 600 Panas. Again [176] 'The man effecting a sale without ownership should be punished in this manner, if he has done it unintentionally. In case he has done it intentionally, he deserves the same punishment as the thief.' † 3 * In all such passages, the term 'anvaya' is used in the etymological sense "those coming after'-i.e. Offspring or progeny; 'one who bears the relationship of rinugamana'-says Medhätithi. It thus stands for 'family' in the restricted sense, The Vivādachintāmaņi itself has explained it in this same passage as belonging to the same vamsha', and 'vamsha' is race, dynasty. Vivādaratnākara (p. 103) explains 'rinvaya' as 'putrādi', 'son and the rest'.—Similarly where Kātyāyana speaks of emancipating the slave-girl whom one has been treating as his mistress-along with her anvaya', the term clearly stands for the progeny of the girl, who is emancipated along with the girl; Vachaspati himself explains the term as 'svajanitaputrasahita', 'along with her son begotten by himself' (see Text No. 301 below, Text p. 70).-In another text (quoted on p. 194 of the printed Text No. 867) the daughter is spoken of and then follows the term 'tadanvayah', 'anvaya of the daughter', which Vāchaspati explains as dauhitras', 'sons of the daughter'.- Again on p. 222, Text No. 984, in Yājñavalkya's text we find the expression ‘tābhya rete'nvayaḥ', in their absence, the anvaya', which term is explained by Vāchaspati as and daughters'-Mitāksarā on 2.175 explains anvaya' as putrapautrādi', 'sons, grandsons and the rest'; and that progeny alone are meant is clear from the reason that is adduced.-On the same text, Aparārka renders the term "anvayā! as svasantānē', 'one's own offsprings':-Vivādaratnākara on p. 458 quotes Pārijāta and Prakāsha as explaining anvaya' as 'son, grandson, etc.'. See notes under Texts 237, et seq. † This text is quoted as if it were from Manu; but it is not found in Manrı. sons 6 ·46 VIVĀDACHINTĀMANI 6 That is, if one sells what belongs to another, unwittingly, he should be fined 600; whereas if he does it intentionally, he should be punished like a thief,-i.e. having his hands cut off and so forth. When the article sold is found in the hands of the Buyer,--and some one comes and tells him 'this is mine, give it to me'; and the man being a gentleman, what he should do under the circumstances, is thus declared by Brhaspati (13.4) [177] When the rightful owner turns up and establishes his ownership over the chattel, the Purchaser should produce the source of his Purchase; by doing this, he becomes cleared.' Source'-i.e. the person from whom he got the thing [i.e. the Seller, says Vivādaratnākara, p. 101]. Katyayang- [178] 'The Purchaser should prove that the Purchase was open and public; or he should produce the Seller. For the producing of the Seller, time should be given to him in proportion to the distance of the place where the Seller may be residing. In a case where, having at first named the Seller, if the Purchaser (drops that and) again takes his stand upon the Purchase transaction,-he should try to produce the Seller, as no useful purpose would be served by putting forward (and relying upon) the Purchase itself.' The genuineness of the Purchase also would be established only by the producing of the Seller; hence it is only when the Seller cannot be traced that the genuineness of the Purchase transaction itself should be sought after. 'Prakasham -i.e. it should be proved that the sale was open and public. As regards what should be done after the Seller has heen produced, Vyāsa says [179] 'When the Seller has been produced, the Purchaser should not be prosecuted any further; thenceforward the dispute shall lie between the Seller and the owner of the lost property.' 'Nāstika' is the man who has lost his property. Says Brhaspati (13.3) [180] 'In a case where the Vendor has been produced, and he loses in the judicial proceedings, he should pay to the Purchaser the price (of the commodity sold, and a fine to the King; the property itself lie shall restore to the rightful owner.' In the event of the Purchase transaction itself boing found to have been improper, tho Purchaser also is to be fined; as says Nārang- [181] ‘If one buys a chattel from a slave without his inaster's perinission, or from a wicked person, or in socrot, or at a low price, or at an improper time, he incurs the same grult.' That is, the guilt incurred by him is the same as that by the man who sells a thing without ownership. Also by concealing the man who sold the thing to him, the Purchaser incurs the same guilt, says Närada- [182] 'The Purchaser should not conccal his source; his clearanco follows from the producing of the source; otherwise, he sharos the guilt and becomes liable to the same punishmont (as the Seller).'

·SALE WITHOUT OWNERSHIP 47 6 Otherwise'-i.e. if he conceals the man who sold the thing to him. [Kätyāyana) [183] 'If the Purchaser does not produce the Vendor, or if he fails to prove the bona fide character of his Purchase, he should be made to pay to the owner the amount claimed by him, and also a fine to the King.' Says Manu (8.202) [184] 'If the source (the Seller) cannot be traced, and the Purchaser has cleared himself by showing the open and bona fide character of his Purchase, he should be let off without punishment; but the property should be restored to the rightful owner.' In a case where the Purchase-transaction has been open and public,-- and yet the rightful owner has established his ownership,--but the Seller has gone abroad and cannot be produced,—the Purchaser shall not be punished by the King; but the property concerned shall be made over to the rightful owner. Says Katyāyana- [185] 'The owner of the lost property should, first of all, prove his ownership hy means of witnesses knowing it; and if he proves that the thing had never been given away or sold by himself, he establishes his owner. ship and obtains the property,'* In regard to the case where the open Purchaser is unable to produce the Vendor, because his place of residence is not known, Byhaspati says- [186] 'In a case where there is no evidence, the King shall take into consideration the character of the parties concerned, and decide the case and apportion the chattel between them equally or more or less, at his own discretion-(13.6). [187] 'In a case where the Purchaser has hought the chattel in the open market-place, and in the presence of the King's officers,—but from a person whose habitation is not known to him, or who has since died, the rightful owner shall pay him half the price of the chattel concerned and take away the chattel itself; each of the two parties thus losing half of the price, as a result of the proceedings -(13.7-8). † * Vivādaratnākara (p. 106) lays down the following procedure :-(1) The owner has to prove that the chattel belongs to him;--(2) in order to clear himself, the Purchaser should prove that he is a bona fide Purchaser ;-(3) in support of this, he should produce the Vendor; (4) if he is unable to trace and produce the Vendor, he should prove that his Purchase was open and public, by means of witnesses knowing all about it. In such cases, remarks Medhătithi, the nett result is that the Purchaser is let off without punishment, but he loses the price that he had paid for it. † That is, both parties--the Purchaser as well as the owner are penalised to the extent of half of the value of the article; the former for making the purchase from an unknown person, and the latter for neglecting to take due care of his property (vide next Text 188)-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 109). Vīramitrodaya (p. 381) remarks that this rule applies to cases where the owner is unable to produce adequate proof of his ownership; if he is able to prove it, he recovers the property without having to pay anything to the Purchaser.

·48 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Again- [188] 'A mistake is committed when one buys a thing from an unknown person, and also when one does not take due care of his property; both these mistakes have been declared by the wise to be the cause of losing one'e property '-(Byhaspati 13.9). In a case where the owner is unable to prove his ownership, the chattel goes to the man who has purchased it openly; and it is the owner (claimant) who is punished;-as declared by Katyāyana- [189] 'If the owner fails to prove his ownership by means of knowing witnesses, he should be punished like a thief,—with a view to prevent the repetition of such misbehaviour.' In certain cases buying from the rightful owner also is wrong; as ways Brhaspati (13.10-11) [190] 'When a man has purchased a chattel at a fair price, having notified it previously to the Supervising Officer, no blame attaches to him; but he would be a 'thief' if it were an 'Improper Purchase '.—If a Purchase has been effected within a closed room, or outside the village, or at night, or secretly, or from a wicked person,* or at a very low price,- it is an Improper Purchase.' This should be treated as purchasing from one who is not the owner. So also Vişnu (5.166)— [191] 'If one purchases a thing in secret and quietly, and under its price, the Purchaser (and the Vendor] † should be punished like thioves.' Says Yājñavalkya- [192] 'If a man recovers from another person's land some chattel that had been stolen or lost,--without notifying it to the King-he should be fined 96 Panas.' He should be punished for depriving the State of the ducs payable to it under the circumstances. *This also includes slaves and others of the lower class-according to Viramitrodaya (p. 375). † Vişnu's text mentions both 'Purchaser' and 'Vendor'; though the printed text and MSS. of Vivādachintamani have 'Krētā', 'Purchusor only. # If a man discovers his lost or stolen prop with cortain Porson and recovers it from him, without reporting it to the King, he is to be punished like a thief; because he has conccalod his acquisition, liko tho thiof -(Vitaduralnākara, p. 110).

·CHAPTER IV Joint Concerns On this point, says Yājñavalkya (2.259) [193] 'When a group of tradesmen carry on business jointly, for the purpose of making profit, the profit and loss of each shall be, either in proportion to the share of the capital contributed by each, or as may have been agreed upon among themselves. * In the absence of a previous agreement, the profit and loss shall be in proportion to the capital; but when there is a previous agreement, they shaīl be in accordance with that agreement. Byhaspati (14.8) [194] 'When any loss or diminution has occurred through the act of God or King, it should be borne by all the partners in proportion to their respective shares.' 'Loss -of Capital, and 'diminution'-of Profit. The exception to this rule is laid down by the same writer- [195] 'When any one partner, acting without the consent of others, or against their express instructions, injures the property through negligence,—that loss has to be made good to all the partners by that same partner.' * Anirdista'-not permitted ; which they have not assented to. Similarly, Byhaspati (14.10) [196] 'That partner who, by his own efforts, saves the merchandise from dangers due to the act of God and King, shall receive the tenth part of that merchandise; the remainder being distributed among the other partners, according to their respective shares.' Nārada (3.6) also- [197] 'When any danger has arisen from an act of God, or from thieves, or the King or fire,-if a partner makes special efforts to save the merchandise, his share has been declared to be the tenth part of it.' Kātyāyana- [198] 'If a partner has saved a commodity from thieves, or from floods, or from fire,-he should receive its tenth part. This rule applies to all commodities.' * Business is said to be carried on jointly', when there is an agreement among a number of tradesmen to the effect that they would carry it on as a Joint Concern. Tradesmen and others have recourse to this method of doing business, for the purpose of making larger profits than they could make, each on his own account. The profit and loss of each partner shall be determined by the share of the capital contributed by him; or, when starting the business, they may have entered upon an agreement to some such effect as A shall be the predominant partner and shall receive half of the profits and the other half shall be divided equally between B and O', and so forth-(Mitākşarā). 4 ·50 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI Some people hold that this rule applies also to the case where the commodity concerned belongs to a single person (and it has been saved by an outsider). That cannot be right; because the texts occur under the context of "Joint Concerns'.--Ratnākara * and others also hold this same opinion. These partners in a Joint Concern should carry on the business without deception to one another; as says Vyāsa- [199] They should carry on sales and purchases after due consideration of the nature of the merchandise, either in the presence or in the absence of one another, without any deception.' And Brhaspati--- [200] 'When any one among the partners has been found to have practised deceit in buying and selling, he should have to clear himself by means of oaths. This is the rule that should be followed in all disputes.' 'Oaths have been mentioned only by way of illustration; what are meant are 'proofs' of various kinds; as it is possible for buyers and purchasers to have witnesses also. That such a deceiver should suffer loss also has been thus declared by Yājňavalkya (2.265) [201] 'If any one of them is found to be crooked, f they should turn him out, depriving him of any profits that he may have earned.—If any of the partners is honestly unable to do his share of the work in the Concern, he should have it done by some one else (as his substituto). This same rule applies to the case of Priests, Cultivators and Artisans,' What is meant is-(a) that the dishonest member they shall turn out after having paid him his share of the capital 1; (b) that, in case the man is not dishonest, but is honestly unable to do his share of the work of looking after the property, or in other kinds of work in the Concern, g—then he should employ another person (on his behalf) who would be able to do his share of that work. If a partner, who was capable of looking after the business, happen to die ---what is to be done is thus asserted by Nārada (3.7) [202] 'If any one of the partners happen to die, his heir shall receive his share; if he has no heir, it may go to some one else who may be able to do the dead man's work || ;-or to all the partners.' On the death of an efficient partner, his heir should look after the commodity and obtain the tenth part of it; if no heir is there, it shall go to some one else who may be able to look after the dead man's share of the work; and in the absence of any single person capable of taking on the dead man's work, all the partners shall jointly look after the business and take the tenth part of it.ll * Vide Vivādaratnākara (p. 114), where, howevor, there is a misprint. + That is, secretly carrying on business on his own individual account-says Aparārka. So also Vivādaratnākara (p. 115). Such as looking after the stores, oxamining the account and so forth-says Mitākaarā. || The Vivādaratnākara (p. 115) puts this more clearly :-Among the co-sharers, if any one becomes incapacitated (it reads ‘vyasanam' in place of 'maranain', death), his heir should look after the business in his placo) and take the tenth share due to him;-if there is no heir, then any one from anong tho partnors, who may be 4B ·JOINT CONCERNS 51 What should be done in the case of the death of the owner of the entire commodity is thus declared by Nārada (3.16) [203] 'If a trader travelling away from his country should happen to die, the King should keep his commodity in safe custody, till his heirs turn up.' So also Bịhaspati (4.11) [204] 'If a trader happen to die by accident, his goods should be shown by the King's officers appointed (for such purposes)'; that is, they should be shown to the King ; [205] When any one comes forward claiming to be the man's heir, he should establish his claim by the evidence of other people; then he becomes entitled to receive the goods (Brhaspati 14.12). Nārada (3.17) [206] 'If there are no heirs, the King shall deliver the goods to his relatives (Bandhus) and Kinsmen (J ñātis); on failure of these, the King shall keep the goods in safe custody for a period of ten years.' Some one has held that all this is meant for the case of the death of a single trader (not to a partner of a Joint Concern).* Says Brhaspati (14.13)— [207] 'Out of the goods, the King shall take the sixth or the ninth or the tenth 1 part, if they belong to the Shüdra, the Vaishya or the Kşattriya (respectively); from the Brāhmaṇa, he shall take the twentieth part.' [208] 'After the lapse of three years, $ if no claimant to the property turns up, the King shall take it to himself; the property of the Brāhmana, however, shall go to the Brāhmaṇas:-(Bshaspati 14.14). Baudhāyana- [209] The property belonging to a non-Brāhmaṇa, who is lost,--the King shall keep for a year and then take to himself.' There are thus two alternative periods for retaining the goods in custody (three years laid down by Byhaspati and one year laid down by Baudhāyana); such diversity is due to the greater or less distance of the places from where capable of doing his own share of the work and also that of the dead man, shall do all that work and obtain the tenth share (belonging to the dead partner);- if all the partners are equally capable of taking on themselves the additional work of the dead partner, then they shall jointly do that additional work and obtain his tenth share. The printed edition is defective; after 'tadabhāvē”, there should be the words 'anyastadvad rakṣitā tadabhāvē', as found in Ma and Mb. * The first claim is that of the Bandhus (relatives on the mother's side, according to Mitākṣarā; wife, daughter and other relations, according to Aparārka);-after them, come the jñātis (Sapinças or relations on the father's side, according to Mitākṣarā; Samānodakas, according to Aparārka).- In the absence of Bandhus and Jñātis, the property should go to the maternal uncle and such others,----says Halāyudha, according to whom 'Bandhu' and 'J ñāti' stand for near relations except the direct heirs—(Vivādaratnākara, p. 116). + This note is not found in Ma and Mb. Vivādaratnākara (p. 116) Teads 'dvādasham', 'twelfth' here. So also Jolly. The printed text reads "abda' which is wrong; the right reading 'tryabdam' is supplied by the MSS.

·52 VIVĀDACHINTĀMANI the claimants might be expected to arrive, which would determine also the time likely to be taken. Says Nārada (3.18) [210] 'When the owner of the property is not there, nor is there his heir, the King shall keep it for ten years * in safe custody and then take it to himself; in this there is no wrong done.' [211] 'When an officiating Priest has become disabled, another Priest shall do his work and receive from him that portion of the Fee which may be commensurate with the work done by him'-(Nārada 3.8). As a general rule Byhaspati (14.15) has the following- [212] “From among persons engaged in a Joint Concern, if some one becomes disabled, his share of the work shall be done by a kinsman of his, or by all his associates.' Yājñavalkya (2.65) [213] 'If any one of them is found to be crooked, they should turn him out, depriving him of any profits that he may have earned. If any of the partners is honestly unable to do his share of the work in the Concern, he should have it done by some one else.—This same rule applies to the case of Priests, Cultivators and Artisans.' [This is the same as Text No. 201 above, quoted again, in reference to the work of the Priests, etc.] What is meant is that these (Priests, etc.) also should carry on their business as 'Joint Concerns!. So that [214] 'If a Priest appointed to officiate at a sacrifice abandons his work, his associates shall pay him only such part of the Sacrificial Fee as may be commensurate with the work actually done by him'-(Manu 8.206). That is, if any one of the Priests happen to abandon his work in course of the performance, on account of illness or such causes--only that portion of the Sacrificial Fee is to be given to him as may be in proportion to the part of the work that he might have accomplished before leaving. Similarly- [215] 'If a Priest abandons the work after the Feos have been given, he shall receive his full share of it, but the work left unfinished, he should get done by some one else (Manu 8.207). The time for the giving of the Sacrificial Fees has been proscribed as that of the ‘Midday Extraction and the like; if tho Foes have been given away at the prescribed time, and then a certain Priest, on account of illness and such other causes, retires and gives up tho work, he obtains his full share of the Fee; but the remaining part of his work he should got done by his son or other relatives. Again- [216] 'Among the Priests, the principal men shall receive half of the whole (Fee); those belonging to the second grade shall receive half of that; * The note that Vivādachintämani has on Text 209 abovo,Vivādaratnākara has got on this text; so that the alternative of ten years also becomes included under the purview of that note.

·JOINT CONCERNS 53 those of the third grade shall receive the third part; and those of the fourth grade shall receive the fourth part :-(Manu 8.210). In connection with the Jyotiştoma, we read 'He initiates them with a hundred'; which means that a hundred cows are the Sacrificial Fee prescribed for that sacrifice.--Now the question arises Which Priest should receive how many cows? The answer is as follows:-(a) The principal' ones among the Priests—i.e. the Hotr, the Adhvaryu, the Udgäty and the Brahman shall receive 'half of the Fee'; which, in view of the subsequent allotments, has been computed to be two less than the exact half; hence the said four Priests are to receive forty-eight cows.--The Priests of the second grade-i.e. the Maiträvaruna, the Prastoty, the Brāhmaṇāchashosin and the Pratiprasthātr, are to receive the half of what is given to the principal Priests; that is, they get twenty-four cows.-The Priests of the third grade,-i.e. the Achchhāvāka, the Nēştr, the Agnidhra and the Pratihartr-are to receive the third part of what is given to those of the first grade; so that these get sixteen cows.-Those of the fourth grademi.e. the Grāvastut, the Nēty. the Poty and the Subrahmanya—receive a quarter of what is given to the principal ones; so that these get twelve cows. These four classes of Priests have been clearly mentioned in the Shrutitext-Adhvaryurgrhapatim, etc. etc.'. Further, Manu (8.208) raises the question- [217] Where particular Fees have been prescribed for particular parts of the sacrifice, will the Fee specifically prescribed for that part be taken by that Priest? Or shall it be received by all ?' There are certain Fees specifically prescribed in connection with particular Priests; for example, in connection with the Abhişāchaniya Rite, it is laid down that 'one should give two golden lamp-posts to the Adhvaryu'. In connection with these special Fees, the question arises Should these Fees be taken up by the particular Priests in connection with whose name they have been prescribed ? Or are such particular Priests to be merely the channel for the gift, which is to be distributed among all ? The answer to this question has been provided by Manu himself (8.209) [218] 'At the Fire-installation, the Adhvaryu receives the chariot, and the Brahman the horse; and the Hotr receives the horse and the Udgāts the cart, at the Purchase (of Soma).' Among persons belonging to a particular Vedic recension, at the Fireinstallation, the Adhvaryu Priest receives the chariot; the Brahman Priest receives the swift horse; and the Hots Priest receives the horse; and the Udgāt; Priest receives the cart at the rite of the Soma-purchase. Hence the conclusion is that the special Fee should be taken by the particular Priest for whom it is prescribed, not by any other Priest. Say Sharkha-Likhita- [219] After one Priest has been appointed, one may appoint another ; the Fee belongs to the former alone; the one appointed later obtains something; if any Priest should go abroad, one should wait for him for some time till the time stipulated by him; and he should not carry on the performance during the interval; but if the Sacrificer is eager to finish the sacrifice, he may do so; and the Priest, on returning from abroad, should get something; in case he goes abroad even when forhidden, at the approach of the Extraction,-he should be fined a hundred; amor if the Priest be defective, then his Family-Preceptor who had initiated him should be fined. Similarly, if a Priest who is suffering from ·54 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI a disease or is an outcast, or intoxicated, or defective or ruined, should happen to be appointed, through mistake, -when he is found out, the Sacrificer should propitiate the other Priests and having satisfied them, [with their consent, he should appoint another). From among the Priests, if any one should abandon the Sacrificer who is not an outcast, he should be fined two hundred. The Sacrificer also should be fined the same amount, if he abandons a Priest who is not an outcast. He may freely dismiss a Priest who is an outcast or ignorant of the Veda; the Priest also may abandon a Sacrificer who is accused of a grave sin and is not generous.' The meaning of this text is as follows:-(a) 'Atha, etc.'-Among the Priests, when one has been appointed and has gone off, then alone should another be appointed; but the Fee shall be payable to the former; the latter is to receive something commensurate with the actual work done hy him.- (6) 'Pravasēt', etc. If a Priest, on account of some business of his own, happen to go abroad, the Sacrificer should wait for him during that time; but if he fears a dereliction of duty on his own part, the Sacrificer may have the sacrifice finished with the help of another Priest; the Fee also is to be given to this other Priest; the former Priest, on return, may be given something.- (c) 'Atha chęt, etc.'-Even when forbidden by the Sacrificer, if the Priest should go abroad at his own pleasure, then he should be fined 100 Panas.- (d) “Sa ēra, etc.'-If the Priest is at fault, then the person who had initiated him should be fined one hundred.-(e) Evam, etc.'—If a Priest who is diseased, etc. has, through ignorance, been appointed,--when his defect is found out, the Sacrificer should propitiate and satisfy the other Priests, and then, with their consent, should appoint another Priest.-(f) 'Kāmāt, etc.' -If the Priest abandons a Sacrificer who does not deserve to be abandoned, and if the Sacrificer dismisses a faultless Priest, each of these should be fined 200 Panas; but there is nothing wrong in abandoning or dismissing a person found to be defective. Says Manu (8.388) [220] 'If a Sacrificer forsakes an Officiating Priest,--and if an Officiating Priest forsakes a Sacrificer;- each being capable of doing his work. and free from disqualifications, their punishment shall be 100 each.' * In view of this the fine of 200 prescribed in the foregoing text should be understood to be meant for the case where the forsaking is wanton (without any reason), or where the offender is very wealthy. Says Nārada- [221] 'There are three kinds of Priests-(1) Hereditary, (2) Self-chosen, and (3) One who officiates, by chance, of his own accord, through friendship (3.10). [222] 'Where an officiating Priest forsakes a Sacrificer who is faultless and has done no wrong, -or where a Sacrificer dismisses a faultloss Priest, --they should both be punished -(3.9). [223] This rule applies to hereditary and to self-chosen Priests; there is nothing wrong in dismissing an accidental Priest :-(3.11). Samyojya' is the Priest employed. * The Arthashästra (3.15) prescribes the fine as 250 Panas.

·JOINT OONOERNS 55 Brhaspati [224] 'It is according to local custom that the loan and its recovery should be regulated.-That which has been lent by several persons jointly should be demanded also jointly. If any of the Creditors does not demand the debt, he loses the interest on it. The Law of Debts has been given in detail before and is stated here only briefly Listen now to the rules relating to disputes among cultivators and others.—Tillage should be undertaken by a sensible man jointly with such men as are his equal in point of the possession of cattle, labourers, seeds and the like, as also the implements of husbandry--(14.18-21).-When, by the deficiency of one partner in regard to cattle and seeds, the cultivation of the field suffers loss, that loss should be made good by that partner, to all the cultivators,' That is, when there has been loss due to the defective implements supplied by any one partner, that loss should be borne by that same partner. Again- [225] 'One who works up gold and base-metals, and yarns, wood, stone or leather, and is well-versed in the art is called an Artisan by the wise (Bphaspati 14.27). [226] 'When these, goldsmiths and others, carry on their work jointly, they should receive their wages in accordance with the work done by each, in due proportion.' "Nirvesha' is wages. In regard to this same matter, Kätyāyana lays down some special rules- [227] 'Among Artisans, there are four grades—(1) the man under training, (2) the trained man, (3) the expert, and (4) the master-artisan; these shall receive one, two, three and four parts respectively (of the proceeds of their joint work).' This division is due to the relative superiority of the knowledge possessed by each. Again Brhaspati (14.29) [228] 'Among a number of men working jointly over building a house, or temple, or digging a tank, or over making articles of leather,—the chief man is entitled to a double share * (of the profits).' [229] 'The same rule has been declared by men learned in the Law to be applicable to dancers also. One who knows the keeping of Time receives a share and a half, while the singers receive equal shares '-(14.30). Adhyardha'—is a share with a half-share added to it; this is what is received by the man versed in the art of keeping Time. [230] 'When anything has been brought from another country, by thieves, under the orders of their leader,—they shall make over a sixth part of it to the King and divide the remainder among themselves, according * The right reading is 'dvyamsha' which is found in both MSS.; as also in Smrtichandrikā, and by Jolly. The printed reading "ardhāmsha', 'half-share', has not been adopted in the translation.

·56 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI to their due shares; the leader shall receive four shares, the bravest shall receive three shares, the most efficient shall receive two shares, and all the rest shall receive equal shares (Brhaspati 14.31-32).-- *Mukhya' is the leader, who exerts his mind and body;- Shūra', the most brave or audacious ;-Samartha', most powerful. Says Kātyāyana [231]. When something has been brought from another kingdom by thieves under the orders of their leader,--they shall set apart the tenth part of it for the King and divide the rest among themselves acc ccording to rule.' In cases where the property has to be shown to the King, the sixth part shall be given to him; where, however, there is sufficient intimation by the leader and the whole of the property is not presented before the King, only the tenth part shall be given to him. Similarly- [232] 'When these men are actively engaged in their work, if some one is caught,whatever is spent over having him set free should be equally divided among all.' That is to say, whatever money is required for his acquittal should be given collectively by all associates. Again- [233] 'Among Tradesmen, Cultivators, Thieves and Artisans,-to the case of all these, where the exact nature of the work done by each cannot be always determined the same rules are applicable.'

·CHAPTER V Resumption of Gifts Says Nārada [234] 'Having made an improper gift, if one wishes to resume it, it is called Resumption of Gift, which has been declared to be a Head of Dispute -(4.1). [235] '(1) What may be given, (2) what should not be given, (3) what has been (rightly) given (Valid Gift), (4) what has not been (rightly) given (Invalid Gift); these are the four points on which judicial proceedings proceed in regard to Gifts-(4.2). [236] 'What should not be given is of eight kinds ;-what may be given is of one kind;-what has been rightly given is of seven kinds;- and what has not been rightly given is of sixteen kinds:-(4.3). The 'impropriety of the gift (mentioned in Text 234 above) may be due either (a) to the giving of what should not be given, or (b) to giving it in an improper manner, or (c) to mistakes having been made regarding the recipient of the gift, or (d) to the absence of the consent of the Father and others, or (e) to the giver himself being too old or suffering from such disabilities. As regards what should not be given, says Brhaspati (15.2)-- [237] ‘What should not be given has been declared to be of eight kinds: (1) Common Property, (2) Son, (3) Wife, (4) Pledge, (5) Entire Property, (6) Deposit, (7) What has been borrowed for a special occasion, and (8) What has been promised to another person.' "Sāmānya', 'common property', is what belongs to several persons, of which there are several owners. * Here as regards the Common Property, the Son and the Wife, the gift becomes invalidated, because the donor has no self-sufficient ownership over them; and this insufficiency of ownership is due-(1) to common equity, as regards Common Property, (2) to direct declarations as regards unwilling Son and Wife (see Text No. 239 below); (3) to direct declaration, as regards the Entire Property, of the man with offsprings, also as regards the giving of what has been promised (see Text 238 below) †;-(4) to the fact * The printed text has omitted the following words after 'atra':--'sāmānyaputradārēşvasvātantryād dānāsiddhih, asvätantryancho', --which are found in the manuscripts. 'Common Property-according to Smytichandrika (p. 442) this term stands for Public Property, such as roads, pathways, etc. But Vivādaratnākara (p. 126) takes it as what belongs to more than one owner, i.e. Joint Property.What has been proinised'--though mere promise is not enough to transfer the ownership, yet what has been promised to one should not be given to another,--says Smrtichandrikā, p. 442.-'Entire Property the prohibition of the giving away of one's Entire Property refers to the person who has Sons and Grandsons living jointly with him; it is not applicable to a man who, either has no offsprings, or has already made over to his offsprings their share of the inheritance; such a person can give away his Entire Property-(Smrtichandrikā)--(see notes on Text 175).--Mitäksarā (p. 611) makes it clear that for making gifts out of the ancestral property, only the consent of the Sons is needed.

·58 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI of the donor having no ownership over the Deposit and the Borrowed Article. As regards all the four-son, Wife, Entire Property and What has been promised-oven though the donor has ownership over them, yet the gift becomes invalidated on account of the texts directly forbidding such gift. In the opinion of the Smrtisāra however, in the case of the Entire Property, the gift certainly remains valid because it has been made by the rightful owner; all that happens in view of the prohibitive texts) is that the donor incurs the sin of doing something that has been forbidden. And Nārada (4.4-5)- [238] 'A Bailment for Delivery, an article borrowed for a special occasion, a Pledge, Common Property, Deposit, Son and Wife and the Entire Property when there is progeny,--and also what has been promised to another,--these the Teachers have declared to be what should not be given away, even under distressful circumstances.' "Son and Wife' being expressed by a compound word are counted as one; hence the total number of 'what should not be given' (though actually nine, as enumerated here) may be regarded as eight only. What is meant is that even in abnormal times of distress, (1) the Son, (2) the Wife, and (3) the Entire Property should not be given away,- without the consent of (1) the Son, (2) the Wife, and (3) the Progeny. That the said three may be given away with the consent of the said three has been thus declared by Kätyāyanam [239] . The Son and the Wife,-if they are unwilling-should not be sold or given away; so also the Entire Property; these the inan shall retain with himself.' * * The printed text omits the necessary word 'viratau' after 'nvayānām'; it is supplied by the MSS.-What is meant is that~(1) The Son should not be given away without the consent of the Son, (2) the Wife should not be given away without the consent of the Wife, and (3) the Entire Property should not be given away without the consent of the offsprings (Sons and Grandsons). That such is the meaning is clear from what Vāchaspati's notes on the next Text No. 239. According to Smrtichandrikā (p. 443) what is meant by the assertion that *the Deposit should not be given' is that it should not be given except (18 a Deposit; as declared by Brhaspati (5.5)-What is held as a Pledge or Deposit can be given away only as a Pledge or Deposit'. It also adds that the prohibition regarding the Son refers to cases where there is only one Son. The sole difficulty in this interpretation that is presented is the reading of the printed text and some MSS.-putradārādyanvayānām' which lends itself to the interpretation that what is required is the consent of the anvaya consisting of the Son, the Wife and the rest'.-But that this cannot be what is moant is clear,--not only for the reasons given above, but also from the fact that Vivādachintāmani itself speaks later on of the consent of these three' which could not be right if'anvaya consisting of Son and Wife, etc.' were meant; as under that oxplanation there would be only one factor-'the anvaya, consisting of Son, Wife, etc.' --whuse consent would be needed not three. The right reading therefore must bo‘putradārlīnvayānām'as found in some palm-leaf manuscripts. The whole matter is clinched by the following note from Viveīcaramchara (pp. 128-129)-(1) What is forbidden in one text (240) is the giving away of the Son and the Wife. even in times of distress ; (2) so also is forbiddon the giving away, even in times of distress, of the Entire Property, if there is Anvaya (Prugeny); (3) while the other text (239) assorts is that in times of distress the Son and tho Wife may be given away after obtaining the consent of those two,--and the Entiro Property may be given away after obtaining the consent of the Anvaya (Progeny); and that there should be no giving away of the unwilling Son and Wife,-nor of the Entire Property, without the consent of the Anvaya (Progeny, Sous and Grandsons). Hence there is no inconsistency between these two texts (238 and 239).

·RESUMPTION OF GIFTS 59 [240] ' In times of distress however, the sale or gift of these may be effected; not otherwise (in normal times).' That is, in the event of the said three (Son, Wife and Progeny) not consenting to the sale or gift, they should be retained by the owner for his own purposes; and when their consent has been secured, then they can be given away. Some people have held the view that the Entire Property should not be given away even on the consent of the Progeny (Sons and Grandsons); as the giving away of this has been forbidden on the ground of the mere presence of the 'Progeny' (and they would be there, even when giving their consent]. As regards the consent of the Son (to being given away or sold), Vashiştha says [241] 'The human being, produced out of the semen and ovule, owes his existence to the Mother and Father; his Mother and Father are the le masters regarding his being given away, sold or abandoned.' In this same connection, with reference to an only Son, the same sage says- [242] 'One should not give away, or receive in gift, an only Son; as he serves the purpose of perpetuating the race of the forefathers. The woman shall not give away, or receive in gift, a Son, except with her husband's permission.' That is, an only Son should never be given away, even though he be willing to be given away; such is the implication of the ratiocinative words ‘as he serves the purpose of perpetuating the race, etc. etc.'* Even with the husband's permission, the woman is not entitled to receive the gift of [i.e. adopt] a son; because she is precluded from performing the Vyährtihoma, which forms an integral part in the rites accompanying the giving and receiving of Sons.-Such is the upshot of the whole text of Vashiştha. The following might be urged. The text has made the statement except with the husband's permission', without any other qualification; which means that when the husband's permission has been obtained, the woman becomes entitled to receive the Son just in the same way as to give him away; and on the basis of this it may be presumed that she is entitled also to the use of the (Vedic) learning necessary for the performance that forms an integral part of the ceremonies relating to the said giving and receiving". True; the woman is so entitled, but only when accompanying her husband, as in the case of sacrifices; and she is not entitled, alone by herself, to it; otherwise the injunction would be dependent upon the rejection (of the text for bidding Vedic study by women). What may be given has been thus described by Brhaspati (15.3) [243] 'What is in excess of the provision for the feeding and clothing of the family may be given away. Otherwise the merit of the giver would have the effect of Poison tasting like Honey.' Says Yajňavalkya- * This text has been misunderstood by an eminent Indian jurist; by which the Privy Council has been misled, in ruling that 'the adoption of an only Son is not illegal'. All authorities on Hindu Law are agreed that it is absolutely illegal.

·60 VIVĀDACHINTĀMANI [244] 'Only such things may be given away as do not injure one's own family, the Wife and the Son being always excepted; the Entire Property also should not be given away, if there is progeny; nor should one give away what has been promised to another person.' And Katyāyana- [246] ‘Barring the dwelling-house,* one's own Entire Property,--in excess of what is required for the maintenance of the family,-may be given away.' That is, what is 'in excess', and what is one's own', should alone be given away; and the giving away of what is not in excess' would be sinful; while the giving away of what is 'in excess' would be meritorious. What the assertion-'otherwise, the merit of the giver, etc.' (in Text 243) -means is,-not only that'on account of the man not doing what is prescribed no merit accrues to him'-but that by doing what is forbidden, the man incurs sin also'. As regards the giving itself, that remains quite valid, if what has been given is the giver's own property. Because the basis of perceptible ownership is well known, and hence it cannot be set aside; consequently, the giving becomes invalidated only when the giver had no ownership over what he has given away. The same rule applies to the case of Immoveable Property also,- according to the Smrtisāra. As regards the consent (of others), it is necessary only when the article given away is the Common Property of the persons concerned and the giver; not when it is not Common Property. Says Brhaspati- [246] 'Whether ancestral or self-acquired, a dwelling-house and lands are declared to be what may be given away, -out of what has been acquired through the seven sources of property '-(15.4). [247] 'Self-acquired property may be given away at one's own pleasure. I What is held as a Pledge can be given only as a Pledge -(15.5). [248] 'In the case of the marriage-gift and ancestral property, there should be no giving away of the whole.' 'The seven sources of property',-i.e. the seven kinds of source of property are the following, mentioned by Manu (10.115) * According to Vīramitrodaja (p. 395), this exception is meant for cases where the man has only one house to live in. | The reading in the printed text and in Ma and Mb is 'prridiyatē', which has therefore been adopted in the translation. In other places this same toxt quoted contains the word 'prachiyatē' in place of 'pradīyatē'; with that reading, tho further qualification becomes necossary-i.e.'what is in oxcess'. This rule applies to Immoveable Property_according to Vīranitrodaya (p. 394). I'At one's pleasure'-even without the consent of Brothers and others-says Viramitrodaya (p. 395). § 'Marriage-gift' includes also 'what has been acquirod by valour'. What is meant by the prohibition herein contained is that tho Entiro Property cannot bo given away without the consent of the Progeny; but with their consont, it could be given away~(Vivādaratnākari, p. 1330). What has been obtained at marriage shall not be givon away without the Wife's consent; and no Ancestral Property shall be given away without the consent of the Son- (Aparārka, p. 780).

·RESUMPTION OF GIFTS 61 6 [249] "There are seven lawful sources of property--(1) Inheritance, (2) Acquisition, (3) Purchase, (4) Conquest, (5) Investment, (6) Industry, and (7) Receiving of Proper Gifts.' Of these (1) ‘Dāya', 'Inheritance', is what comes to one from his ancestors ;—(2) 'Lābha', 'Acquisition', is in the form of obtaining buried treasure and such things *;—(4) "Jaya', Conquest', through war;- (5) Prayoga', 'Investment', is lending money on interest;-(6) 'Karmayoga', 'Industry, is agriculture, trade and the like.t-All this has been mentioned only by way of illustration; as a matter of fact, anything that one has, in any way, made absolutely his own, may be given at his own pleasure, while what has been acquired in common with others may be given only on their consent; so also that Ancestral Property which is undivided. [Says Brhaspati 15.61 [250] 'When (a) a Marriage-gift, (b) an Ancestral Property, (c) what has been won by valour is given away with the consent-a) of the Wife, (6) of Kinsmen, and (c) of the Master,--then the gift acquires validity.' Sandāyika' here stands for that part of the Marriage-gift (Dowry) which has been given for the use of the Bride; when such a property is given away by the Husband, it needs the consent of the Wife; as then alone would the demands of equity be satisfied. No such consent can be needed in the case of such parts of the Dowry as have been given for the use of the man himself-such as Dresses and the like. If the text meant the necessity of consent in such cases also, it would be one laying down things for a transcendental purpose (common equity not demanding any such consent). In the case of Ancestral Property-moveable as well as immoveable-which is undivided,--there would be need for the consent of the other coparceners. -Similarly in regard to what has been acquired by valour,-i.e. conveyances and other belongings of the enemy, which have been won as war-prize,-the consent of one's master is necessary for making a gift of it. Because it has been declared that all such prizes of war should go to the victorious King. But this does not apply to the case of Dresses and such belongings of the vanquished enemy; because these things have been declared to belong to the victorious individual himself. Others have cited the following example-The defeated King had given horses and other things to his followers,-these things have been conquered by the army of the victorious King,--thereafter if the victorious King is giving away any of those things, it is necessary to secure the consent of the defeated King. I [Reverting to Text No. 247}– What is held as a Pledge can be given only as a Pledge',--that is, a Pledge can be made over to the ownership of another person in the same character as it has been under the donor's own ownership. What is meant, therefore, is as follows:-A pledged property can be given away only in this form-'I am holding this property only as a Pledge.--I * In addition to this Medhătithi suggests two other explanations of 'Lābha' (1) What has been inherited in common with other persons, and (2) Gifts from friends and from the father-in-law.Jaya' is winning of law-suits, according to Nandana, who also explains 'Prayoga' as Teaching, and Karmayoga' as Sacrificing for others. of Of the seven 'Sources of Property',-Inheritance, Acquisition, Purchase are 'lawful for all men; Conquest is lawful for the Kgattriya only; Investment and Industry are lawful for the Vaishya only; and the Acceptance of Proper Gifts is lawful for the Brāhmana only-says Parāsharamādhava (Achāra, p. 309). 1 The printed text contains here a passage after 'iti', beginning with 'nyayamülā' and ending with "Oyhaspatih'. These six lines are not found in the MSS.; nor do they fit in with the context,--treating as it does of an entirely different subject. It has therefore been omitted in the translation, ·62 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI am giving it to you.--you also keep it as a Pledge and restore it to the owner on realising from him the amount due on the Pledge'. [In regard to 'Ancestral Property' mentioned in Text No. 250], there is the following text- [251] 'Divided or individed, all coparceners are equally entitled to the Immoveable Property; no single coparcener has the power to give away, pledge or sell it. What this means is that even in a case where the coparceners have been divided,--so long as their respective shares have not been allocated and assigned,--the property remains 'common' among them, and as such it continues to be Joint Property'; and hence no one has the power of giving, pledging and selling it. When, however, all the various articles constituting the Joint Property have been severally allocated and assigned to the individual coparceners, each of them becomes the sole owner of his own share; and in regard to this, the transaction of his giving, pledging and selling of such share is perfectly valid. Some people have taken the general term 'dāyāda' "coparcener', as standing primarily for the Son, and they explain the meaning to be that, so long as the Father is present, the Son, even though separated from him, has no power to dispose of the Immoveable Property; hence what the Son can give away is only what he has obtained through the seven Sources of Property', Acceptance of Gift and the like.* What has been given away by a person who is the sole owner of the property,-can never be invalidated. In connection with the afore-mentioned text (of Yājñavalkya, No. 244 above)-says Hārīta [252] ‘By not giving what one has promised, -as also by taking away what has been given, one goes to various hells and is also born as a lower animal. What has been promised in word, but not fulfilled in action, constitutes a moral debt, in this world and in the next.' And Kātyāyanam [253] 'When one of his own accord, has promised a gift to a Brāhmana,- if he does not give it, he should be made to give it, just like a debt due, and should also undergo the Lowest Amercement.' And the Matsya-puräna- [254] 'If one does not give what he has promisod, the King should fine him one Suvarna.' * According to Smrtichandrikā (p. 447) this Text No. 251 refers to Inmoveable Property ; the sense being that when evon divided coparceners have equal claims what to say of those who are not divided ?-Vivādaratnākara (p. 131) remarks as follows:-Someone has asserted that this text is meant to apply only to undivided Immoveable Property. This, however, is not right. Because whon the toxt usos the term 'divided', it cannot be taken as excluding the 'Immoveable Property mentioned herein; because as regards moveable articles bolonging to several persons, the incapacity of any one of them disposing of them has been alreacly doclarod by Brhaspati in anothor text (No. 237 above), where 'Common Proporty' has been mentioned.--Another writer has held the view that under Text No. 246 above, what is meant by the term 'vivakşitam' is that the consent of coparconors should be secured; and that the Text No. 247 applies to property other than immoveable. -This is not right; because the term 'vivakṣitam' cannot, in any way, indicate the necessity of securing the consent of other persons; bocauso thoro is no reason for curtailing the scope of the text and because such an interpretation is against all usage.

·RESUMPTION OF GIFTS 63 An exception to this is laid down in Gautama*- (255) · Even when one has promised a gift, one should not give it if the person is one beset with unrighteousness." The 'Unrighteousness' meant here is such as disqualifies the man from being a proper recipient' of gifts. As regards ‘Valid Gift' (what has been rightly given) (the third factor of the Chapter, enumerated under Text 235 above) says Byhaspati (15.8) [256] (1) Wages for work done, (2) Reward for satisfaction, (3) Price of commodity purchased, (4) Nuptial Fee, (5) What is given to a benefactor, (6) What is given through respect, (7) What is given through kindness, and (8) What is given through affection; these are the eight forms of Valid Gift. (1) 'Bhrti', Wages;-(2) 'Reward for satisfaction'-given to Actors and others;—(3) Price of commodity purchased'-paid to the Vendor; (4) Nuptial Fee—the fee for marriage, paid to the person who gives away the girl in marriage ;(5) What is given to a benefactor'-in gratitude, by way of recompense; (6) "What is given through respect'-to deserving recipients; -(7) “What is given through kindness'-to the Son and others :-(8) "What is given through affection-to Friends and others. If 'what is given through affection' is included in one of the preceding ones, then the number of Valid Gifts is seven only. > As regards the Invalid Gift (what is not rightly given), says Närada (9.11)- [257] 'The following gifts are Invalid:-(1) given under the influence of fear, (2) anger, (3) lust, (4) grief; (5) given by one suffering from disease ; (5) given as bribe, (7) or in jest, (8) or by mistake, (9) or by fraud; (10) given by a minor, (11) or an idiot, (12) or one who is not his own master, (13) or one in distress, (14) or intoxicated, (15) or insane, (16) or an outcast; (17) what is given in expectation of some work in return.' The five kinds ending with 'suffering from disease' [i.e. Fear, Anger, Lust, Grief and Disease] should be understood to be of such high degree * The Arthashāstra (3.16) has the following exceptions:-(a) The Entire Property, the Son, the Wife and one's own self,--after giving away any of these, if the man repent of it, the gift may be returned to him.-(6) If & religious gift has been made to an undeserving person, it may be resumed.-(c) A friendly gift, if made to an evil-doer, may be resumed. † Reward for satisfaction'-given to the conveyer of happy news--such as the birth of a son-according to Aparārka, p. 781.- Strīshulka' is explained as 'present to one's wife' by Aparārka (p. 781). What is given through kindness'-charitable gifts to the poor and destitute, according to Mayūkha (p. 204); given for religious purposes-according to Vivādaratnākara (p. 133).--Valid'-rightly given; hence never to be resumed says Smytichandrikā (p. 449). I 'Fear-from the person to whom the gift is made,--and the other conditions are meant to be so violent as to upset one's mind-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 135). Vyatyāsa' is mistake, as regards the article given or the recipient (Vivādachintāmaņi, and Vivādaratnākard, p. 135),-Legarding the article given (Parăsharamādhava, p. 223),-regarding the recipient (Mayukha, p. 204).–According to Vīramitrodaya (p. 398 and also Mitākşarā), "Vyatyāsa' may be taken as exchange.Fraude.g. while really giving only a hundred, representing it to be a thousand (Piramitrodaya, 6 ·64 VIVĀDACHINTĀMANI as to deprive the man of the normal state of mind.—'Bribe-is going to be defined by Kātyāyana.-Jest'—joke.—Mistake'--misconception, regarding the thing given or the recipient.-Fraud'-i.e. negligence and the like. 'Minor' here stands for one who is unable to discriminate Right and Wrony. - Idiot--devoid of intelligence.-"One who is not his own master'-.g. the Son, the Slave and such others.—Distress' is abnormal condition.- *Intoxicated'-through wine.--Insane'-through the disorder of Wind (Nervousness).-'Outcast- excommunicated by one's relations.---'What is given in expectation of some return i.e. given on certain conditions, and the conditions are not fulfilled *; (under all these circumstances the gift made is invalid]. Says Kätyāyana- [258] 'One should resume the gift if it has been made under the influence of lust or anger, or by one who is not his own master, or by one who is in distress, or is imbecile, or intoxicated or insane,-or made under a mistake or in jest.' [259] "If a bribe has been promised as to be paid on the accomplishment of some work,—that should never be given, even if that work is accomplished. In case the bribe had already been given beforehand, the recipient should be compelled to refund it; and he should be fined eleven times that amount; so have declared Gārgēya and Gālava.' But if the gift has been made by the man in distress with a roligious motive,--that remains valid; according to the following declaration by Kātyāyana [260] 'When a man, either in the normal condition or in distress, has proclaimed a gift, with a religious motive, if he dies without making that gift, his son should certainly he made to make it.' The 'Bribe that, by its very nature, is one that inust he returned.--has been thus defined by Kātyāyand [261] 'What is obtained (a) by indicating the thief. tho criminal, the misbehaved and the adulterer,—or (b) by exposing the man who has lost his character,or (c) hy instigating lies,-is called Bribe. In such cases the giver is not to be punished, it is the middlo-mall who is at fault.' That is, (a) the money that is given by the leador of thieves and other criminals to persons for showing these latter, and (0) what is given to the person who has instigated witnesses and others to tell lies, is called Bribe'. This has to be refunded, even when the work for which it had been given p. 398); or knowing that a cow is going to be given to A, B dinguinos himself as A and receives the gift (Mayükha, p. 204).- Mūdha'--illiterato, ignorant of the Veda and of worldly experience (Viramitrodaya, p. 398);-bewildered in regard to the recipient (Smrtichandrikā, p. 451); ono who, hy his vory naturo, is unahlo to discriminate between right and wrong (Vrvādaratnākarı, p. 135).--Būlu'-Minor, under sixteen years of age (Mitūksarā, and Parūsharamadhavui, p. 228); one, not necessarily a minor, who is unable to understand what should and whut should not be done. Arta', one in distress; when. for instanco, a man is being curried away by a swift stream, who cries out 'I shall give a hundrud gold-plocus to anyone who saves me'-(Asahāya). * The printed edition is wrongly punctuated. The word 'pūdhyasiddhau? goes with the previous line, aftor'sopādhicuttain'. Thu MSS. punetunto the soutonco rightly.

·RESUMPTION OF GIFTS 65 has been accomplished.--Middle-man'-the man who actually receives the bribe. As regards what has been given under the influence of Lust, Anger, etc., --this has been dealt with under the section of 'Payment of Debts-(see Texts Nos. 99 and 101 above). Brhaspati (15.9) [describes the Invalid Gift thus [262] 'What has been given-a) by one angry, or (b) by one overjoyed, * or (c) through inadvertence, or (d) by one distressed, or (e) by a minor, or (f) by one who is insane, or (g) terrified, or (h) intoxicated, or (ë) too old, or () an outcast, or (%) an idiot, or (l) afflicted with grief, or (m) diseased, or (n) what is given in jest;-all such gifts are invalid (void).' What is meant by all this is that what has been given for religious and other such purposes is always valid. 'Too old'-one whose bodily organs have become disabled. Brhaspati goes on- [263] 'What has been given in expectation of some return, or what has been given to an unworthy recipient under the impression that he is worthy, or what has been given for an immoral purpose, all this the owner (donor) may resume.' "Given in jest' (in Text No. 262) is what is given in play. Similarly, in other cases also, when the gift made of a certain kind (for a certain purpose) does not turn out to be of that kind,--the donor shall resume it by force; as says Manu (8.212-213) [264] 'When one has given money for a pious purpose to a person asking for it,-if, subsequently, it is not used for that purpose, then, it should not be given to him.-If, through arrogance or greed, the donee should seek to recover the gift, he should be made by the King to pay one Suvarņa, as an expiation for that act of theft.' † * This second term as read in all the available texts (printed and MSS.) is hrsta', which means "overjoyed', one who has lost the balance of his maind through excessive joy. The Smstichandrikā (p. 453) reads 'bhraşta', 'fallen'; but this would be nearly the same as 'outcast'. Vivādaratnākara (p. 136) reads 'Kruşta ', which is the form also found in a text of Gautama's in the same connection; this is the form that appears to have been adopted by Jolly, who translates it as 'one resenting an injury'. This, however, would be not much different from angry'. † Says Medhātithi~When the money has been already given, there can be no sense in saying that it should not be given'; hence the words should be taken to mean that it shall be taken back from him';~or in the former clause itself, 'given' may be taken in the sense of promised; the meaning being that what has been promised should not be given'. In the former case also, the gift being for a definite purpose is only contingent on the fulfilment of that purpose,-hence if that purpose is not fulfilled, what was given should be taken back.--Seek to recover "et-by filing & suit before the King. Act of theft',--this might give rise to the idea that the man is to suffer the penalties of regular theft; hence the text has specified the penalty as a fine of one Ŝuvarna (Gold Coin); the meaning being that, though his punishment is to be only this, yet in all respects, he is to be treated as a thief. Vivādaratnākara (p. 137) explains the meaning to bem-'If the man has begged for the money for the purpose of performing a pious act,--but having got it, he does not perform it, then the gift shall be recovered from him'. Nandana provides an entirely different explanation of the second text If the man should really perform the pious act for which he had asked for the money, then the man who had promised to pay, but did not pay, or having paid, took it back, should be made to pay a fine of one Suvarna for not fulfilling his promise'. 5 ·66 VIVADA CHINTAMANI Seek to recover',-hy asserting. You gave me this; I am not going to give it back',-or 'Please pay up what you have agreed to pay'. Says Nāradam [265] 'He who accepts what is not rightly given (an invalid gift), and he who gives what should not be given (an invalid gift),—both of these should be punished by the King conversant with the Law.' * * The further implication of this is that in such cases the King shall have the gift returned (Smytichandrikā, p. 444).

·CHAPTER VI Law relating to Servants SECTION (A)-KINDS OF SERVANT Says Brhaspati (16.1) - [266] 'What should not be given and other matters have been explained: The Law relating to Servants is going to be expounded now. (A) This Head of Dispute is, at first, explained in relation to cases where service has been promised.' Thus the first section of this Head of Dispute deals with the case where the Servant has agreed to serve and then refuses to serve. [267] '(B) Non-payment of Wages and (C) the consequent dispute between the Owner and Keeper (Employer and Employee) follow in due order- These are the three sections of the Law relating to Servants-(Brhaspati 16.2). Who is a 'Servant' and of how many kinds is thus explained by Närada (5.2) [268] 'The Servant has been known by the wise to be of five kinds; four of these are Labourers and the fifth is the Slave, of whom there are fifteen kinds.' (Vide Text No. 285 below.) Four kinds of Labourers along with the Slave are "Servants'. How there are four kinds of Labourers has been thus explained by Nāradan [269] '(1) The Pupil, (2) the Apprentice, (3) the Hireling, and (4) the Manager--these are Labourers; and (5) Slaves are those Born in the House and the rest. The characteristic common to all these has been declared to be that they are not their own master.'* Brhaspati (16.5) has explained the four kinds of Servants) in the following manner :- [270] Servants are of four kinds—according as they serve for knowledge, for skill, for lust, or for gain. Knowledge has been described as consisting of the Three Vedas--şk, Yajuş and Säman ;-for the purpose of acquiring this knowledge, one should have recourse to the service of the Teacher as laid down in the Scriptures. [One who does this is the Pupil.]' * The first four are called 'Labourers. The distinction between the 'Servant' and the 'Slave' is thus explained in Viramitrodaya (p. 405): When the man surrenders himself absolutely and entirely to the service of his Master, he is & 'Slave', --when he simply undertakes to serve the Master, without surrendering hitaself entirely, he is a Servant'.

·68 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Says Närada (5.8) [271] 'Till he las acquired knowledge, the Pupil should serve the Teacher diligently; he should behave similarly towards the Teacher's wife and also his son.' With regard to the second kind of service (for skill)---says Byhaspati (16.6) (272] 'Skill is described as art and craft-such as working in gold and other metals; dancing and the rest; while learning all this, one should serve in the Teacher's household.' It is this kind of learner seeking skill in arts and crafts whom Nārada has called 'antēvāsin', 'Apprentice', in the following text- [273] “If one wishes to acquire his own art or craft, he d, with the sanction of his relatives, go and live with a Master; the exact period of apprenticeship having been previously settled (Byhaspati 5.16). [274] 'The Master should teach him in his own house and should feed him; he should not make him do any other work; he should treat him like a son (5.17). He goes on- [275] 'If the Apprentice forsake the Master who is instructing him properly and who is faultless, he should be compelled to remain with him and should suffer corporeal punishment and confinement'-(5.18). [276] 'Even if his course of instruction be completed before time, the Apprentice should remain with the Master till the expiry of the stipulated time. Whatever work he may do during that time, the produce thereof shall belong to the Master.' Vadha' (in Text 275, which literally means death) stands for mere beating; and 'bandha' for tying up. "Stipulated time—what is meant is that even on the coinpletion of his course of instruction the Apprentice should fulfil tho stipulation made to the Master at the outset to the effoct that 'I shall work for you for such and such a time'.-The produce thereof '-in the shapo of wages and other things earned by the Apprentice. He goes on- [277] 'After having acquired his craft, in the stipulatod time, the Apprentice should reverentially go round the Master; and having propitiated him to the best of his power and obtained his permission, he should roturn to his home -(5.20). In reference to the third and fourth kinds of service' [i.e. the Hireling who serves for the sake of Lust and Gain-mentioned in Text 270 above). says Brhaspati [278] "[Among Hirelings] there is (a) one supported by the woman; it is he who marries a Slave-girl who works for her Master -just like another man who works for food.'

·LAW RELATING TO SERVANTS 69 [279] (6) The Hireling (working for wages) is of several kinds; so also one who is supported by (works for) sharing in the produce; he does the work that he has undertaken and receives the stipulated share.'* For 'bhogabhytah', the Ratnākara reads 'bhāgabhrtah'. [280] 'One who is supported by sharing in the produce is of two kinds, consisting of cultivators and cattle-tenders; the former receiving a share of the agricultural produce, and the latter a share of the milk.' The man supported by sharing also being one who works for wages (of some kind),--the Hireling comes to be of four kinds (as declared in Texts 268 and 270 above).--Nārada has spoken of the worker for share as the third kind of Hireling. Of the Hirelings, Nārada states another classification- [281] . The Hireling is of three kinds -(1) Highest, (2) Middle, and (3) Lowest. Their wage is fixed according to the work done, and the degree of skill and devotion displayed. The Warrior constitutes the Highest Class ; the Cultivator constitutes the Middle Class; and Carriers represent the Lowest Class ;-thus the Hireling belongs to these three kinds.' † [282] 'The Manager is one who has been appointed to manage the properties of the Master and to superintend his household. He is also called the Controller of the Household.' Brhaspati has included this Manager also under the class 'Hireling', while Narada has treated them as General and Special categories. What is the nature of the duties of these has been thus described by Byhaspati- [283] “ These four have been declared to be those who do high-class work'; *These four-i.e. the Pupil, the Apprentice, the Hireling and the Manager ;- 'the resti, consisting of the fifteen kinds of Slaves, do work that is of the low kind.' [284] ‘Work is of two kinds--High and Low; the Low work has been declared to be the work of Slaves; and High work is the work of Hirelings. Such work, for instance, as sweeping of the gateway, of the privy, of the road, and of the dumping ground; shampooing the secret parts of the body; removing of food-leavings, of ordure and of urine; and the rubbing of the Master's limbs;--these constitute the “low class " of work. All the rest belong to the “high class ". * This text has been variously read: (a) For‘vadavābhrtah', some books read 'vanitābhrtah'; this makes no difference in the meaning; for 'annabhrto in the printed text, Ma and Mb read 'bhrtako'; the meaning in this case being just like the other Hireling working for wages':- (c) for 'bhogabhrtah' another reading, also noted by Vāchaspati, is 'bhägabhrtaḥ'; here also there is not much difference in the real purport. f Vivādachintāmani has ityēşa trvidho bhrtaḥ' in place of tathā cha grhakarmakyti as found elsewhere. According to Vivādaratnākara (p. 143) there are two distinct persons men. tioned-(1) the Manager of Properties, and (2) the Controller of the Household.

·70 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI [With regard to Slaves] says Nārada (5.26–28) [285] 'Slaves have been declared to ba of fifteen kinds:-(1) Born in the Master's house, (2) Bought, (3) Received in gift, (4) Hereditary, (5) Maintained during famine, (6) Received in mortgage, from the Master, (7) Enslaved by being freed from a heavy dobt, (8) Captured in battle, (9) Won through a wager, (10) One who has surrendored himself, saying 'I am thine', (11) An Apostate from Renunciation, (12) Enslaved for a stipulated period, (13) Enslaved for food, (14) Enslaved through connection with a Slave-girl, and (15) One who has sold himself.' 'Dāyādupāgataḥ-one who has been a Slave through several generations, hereditary-Anākālabhrtah-supported during famine.- Mokşitah'-one has agreed to become a Slave on boing freed from dobt.—Krlah-one who has entered into an agreement that 'I shall be your Slave for such and such a time':- Bhaktadāsaḥ'-one who has agreed to bocomo a Slave for the sake of food (maintenance) oven during times of plonty. Says Nārada (in regard to No. 11 above).- [286] . The man who has become an Apostato from Ronunciation would be the Slave of the King himself; for him there is no omancipation, nor expiation of any kind.' But Katyāyana- [287] 'Of the three twice-born castes who become Apostates fron Renunciation,--the Brāhmaṇa should be banished, the Kşattriya und the Vaishya he shall enslave.' The word 'kşatravit' is a copulative compound. And Dakşam [288] 'Having taken to renunciation, if the man does not remain firm in his duties—the King shall brand him with the dog's foot and banish him immediately.' As to which kind of Slave can be emancipated in wlint way, or under what circumstances there can be no emancipation at all, --says Nārada- [289] 'Of these, the group consisting of the first four can nover bu emancipated from slavery, except through the favour of the Mastor; slavery sticks to them for generations.' The four-i.e. the Slave born in the Master's house, the Bought, the one received in gift, and the Hereditary.-In fact, it is only to thoso four that. the name 'Slave' is directly applicable, in its primary sonso; to the othors, it is applied only indirectly, on the basis of the common character of not being one's own master. Hence where the woman is spokon of an 'married by a Slave' (as in Text 307 below), the term 'Slavo' is takon is standing for the said four kinds. Again- [290] The wretched man who, being his own master, sells liimself, is the meanest of these all; and he also is never omancipated from slavory.' His own master-i.e. not the Slave of any person. The exception (in Text 289)—'except from the Mastor's favour'-is applicable to this also.

·LAW RELATING TO SERVANTS 71 What is asserted in the following text [291) 'Even though the Shūdra may be given up by his Master, he does not become emancipated from slavery; as slavery is inborn in him; who then can remove that from him ? occurring in the Mārkandeya Purāna, representing the words of Harishchandra, is only meant to deprecate the Slave (and is not meant to be literally true). If it were not so, and if slavery were inbom in the Shüdra, there could be no such dealings as the selling of Shūdras and so forth. [As regards the emancipation of the other kinds of Slaves] Närada goes on [292] 'If the man who is not his own master should surrender himself to someone saying I am thine,--this latter man cannot take him as his Slave; he shall be taken by his former Master.' That is, the man does not become the Slave at all of the second man. [293] 'Persons stolen and sold, or those who have been enslaved by force, should be forthwith set free by the King; as their slavery is not held to be legal.' 6 [294] 'From among these (Slaves), if any one happen to save his Master's life, he should be emancipated from slavery and should receive a son's share in his property.' Esām'-.e. from among these. [295] 'The Slave who has been maintained during famine becomes emancipated by giving a pair of oxen, as also whatever has been eaten during the hard times; by so doing * he becomes free.' That is, by giving to the Master what he has consumed during the famine, and also a pair of oxen, he becomes emancipated. [296] 'The Slave who had been received in mortgage becomes emancipated by paying money to the previous Master if he agrees to redeem him';- -ahita' is pledged, mortgaged; ‘if however, the previous Master makes him over to the mortgagee himself, then he becomes the same as the 'Bought Slave'. That is, if the Slave is made over to the man to whom he had been mortgaged,--and is not emancipated by him,--then he becomes as good as the 'Bought' Slave of this mortgagee. Such is the explanation of this text provided by Laksmidhara and others. [297] 'The Debtor (Slave) becomes emancipated by paying the debt with accrued interest.' It has been laid down that 'the Creditor may make the Debtor do work for him, in liquidation of his debt'; it is in accordance with this dictum that the Slave is spoken of here as 'Debtor'. [298] 'On the lapse of the stipulated period, the man enslaved for a stipulated period becomes emancipated.' * The right reading is ‘tena' as in MSS.--not'ta nna' as printed.

·72 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI That is, if a man has contracted a debt, and has stipulated that during the time that the debt remains unpaid, he would remain a Slave, he is what has been called 'a Slave for a stipulated period'; when the debt has been cleared off by the work done for the Master, and the stipulated period has elapsed, the man becomes emancipated. [299] 'The Slave who has surrendered himself, saying “ I am thine",--tlie Slave captured in battle,--and the Slave won through a wager,--become eman. cipated, on giving substitutes whose capacity for work is equal to their own'; that is, by offering another Slave in his own place. [300] 'The man who has been enslaved for food beconies free immediately on giving up the said subsistence. And the man who has been enslaved through his connection with a Slave-girl becomes emancipated by abandoning her. Vadavâ' is Slave-girl;-here 'nīgraha' is renouncing or abandoning her;-after which the liability of the man to perform the duties of the husband of the girl ceases. And the man who has become a Slave for the sake of obtaining food -he also becomes emancipated by giving up that means of subsistence. Says Külyayana [301] 'If a man has intercourse with his Slave-girl and she gives birth to a child, then, in view of the seed, she should be emancipated, along with her progeny.' According to the Prakasha, the Ratnākara and the Pārijāta however, it is only when the man has no other son that the Slave-girl along with her child shall be emancipated: and not when he has other song. * In a case where the Slave has to be emancipated entirely through the favour of his Master,--the procedure has been laid down by Närada (5.42–44) [302] 'When, being pleased with the Slave, one wishes to emancipate him from slavery, he should take from the Slave's shoulder a jar full of water and smash it on tho ground; he shall sprinkle the Slave's head with water containing rice and flower; and having declared him to be a 'free man' three times, he should send him away towards the East. Thenceforth he should be spoken of as one cherished by tho favour of his Master; and henceforward he bocomes one whose food may be cater and whose gifts may be accepted; and he is respected by all good men.' [303] 'These three-the Wife, the Slave and the Son-huvo no property of their own; whatever they acquire belongs to him to whom they themselves belong.'-(Manu.) Says Dēvala [304] 'When the father is dead, then may the sons dividlo among themselves the property of the father; as while the blarnoless father is alive, the * Mayükha (p. 210) remarks that this is to be dono only if the child born is found to be endowed with exceptionally good qualities. Says Arthashāstra (3.13)— If such an emancipatod girl turn out to be an expert housewife devoted to the interests of the family,--hor mother, brother, and sister also shall be freed from bondage'.

·LAW RELATING TO SERVANTS 73 sons have no rights of property;-while the husband is alive, women have no rights over any property; so also while the Master is alive, the Slave has no rights over any property—this has been declared by Manu.' [305] 'The Brāhmaṇa may quite confidently take what belongs to the Shūdra; as the Shūdra has no property at all; whatever he has is liable to be taken away by his Master.' Also Kätyāyanam [306] 'Whatever property the Slave may haven of that, his Master has been declared to be the owner. But the Master shall not take what the Slave has acquired either through the Master's kindness or by selling himself.' That is, whatever may have been obtained by the Slave through his Master's favour, and by his own sale,-to that property of the Slave, his Master is not entitled.* [307] 'If a girl who is not a Slave is married by a Slave, she also becomes a Slave; because her husband is her Master, and this Master is the Slave of his own Master.' Here the term 'not a Slave' must be taken as related to that correlative (Master) who is indicated by the term “Slave' [i.e. as meaning that the girl in question (Bride) is not the Slave of the person to whom the Slase (Bridegroom) belongs); this interpretation being in accordance with the ' Padi-nyāya' (the Maxim of the Foot, by virtue of which whenever there is mention of the 'foot', it must mean the foot of some person, and this person must be the one who happens to be indicated by the context; in the same manner, when the text uses the term 'not-a-Slave, it must be 'not a Slave' of the person indicated in the context; and this person happens to be the one to whom the Bridegroom belonys).-Hence what the text means is that the girl may be either not a Slave at all, or she may be the Slave of someone other than the Bridegroom's Master,-in either case, when married to the said Slave, she becomes the Slave of the Bridegroom's Master'. The implication of this is that being married to a Slave is one of the grounds of the girl's emancipation from her bondage to her own previous Master. This is the reason why this text occurs in the present context. It is only when the act is performed by the Slave with the Master's consent that it becomes valid. Hence in a case where the Master has not given his consent, the ownership of the previous owner does not cease; this case being regarded as analogous to that of the marriage of tho ordinary Slave-girl. SECTION (B)-RULES RELATING TO SLAVERY Says Narada (5.40) (308) 'Among the several castes, there can be no slavery in the inverse order; except in the case of the man who has violated his own duties. * Vivādaratnākara (p. 150) reads the second line of this text as—Prakäsham vikrayad yat-tu na svāmī dhanamarhati', and explains it as follows :—'What the Master has openly sold to the Slave- or what was given to him as his own price when he was sold,—and what the Master has given to the Slave through favour,-in such property of the Slave, the Master has no right'. It says that this is the meaning of the text as read by Prakāsha, Kāmadhēnu, Pārijāta and the rest.

·74 VIVADACHINTĀMANI Slavery (in respect to the castes) has been held to be analogous to the condition of the "wife".' That is, a person of the bigher caste cannot be the slave of one belonging to a lower caste; just as the girl of a higher caste cannot be the wife of one belonging to a lower caste. But in the case of the person who has violated the duties of his own caste and life-stage, slavery (to a lower caste) is permissible. Says Katyāyanam [309] ‘Among the three higher castes, the Brāhmaṇa shall never be a slave. A Brāhmana shall never make a slave of a man of his own caste;if he is a man endowed with superior character and learning then he can make an inferior Brāhmana do his work; but the Brāhmaṇa shall do no mean work. If the Brāhmaṇa is made a slave, the glory of the King suffers diminution.-The Kşattriya, the Vaishya and the Shüdra may make a man of equal caste work as his slave,—but never a Brāhmana; so says Brhaspati.' That is, if a man is possessed of high qualifications, he can take work out of one who has no qualifications; a man with superior qualifications may take work from one with inferior qualifications; but here also he shall not make him do such dirty work as the cleaning of ordure, urine and so forth. Says Manu (8.411) [310] 'If a Kşattriya or a Vaishya happen to be in want of livelihood, the Brāhmana shall support him ungrudgingly and make him do his own work.' ** "Own work'-.e. work compatible with the caste of the poor man. [311] 'If a Brāhmana, on the strength of his being the Master, makes sanctified twice-born persons do servile work, against their will,-he shall be made by the King to pay six hundred'-(Manu 8.412). Servile work'- i.e. such work as is fit for the Shūdra, but unfit for the Twice-born.t [312] 'A Shūdra, bought or unbought,-one shall make to do servile work; since it was for doing servile work that he has been created by the Selfborn One.-Even though set frce by the Master, the Shüdra is not released from servitudo; since that is innate in him, and who can release him from it?' I Servitude'-i.e. servile work. Says Vişnu (5.151) * Medhätithi explains this as the Brāhmana's own work; such as fetching wator, fuel and such things; but not such work as porsonal attendance, washing of unclean things and the like'. † According to Medhätithi this refers to Brāhmanas, not to all twice-born castes; the moaning being that, if a Brāhmana makos his follow-casternon do such servile work as the washing of feet, removal of offal, sweeping and so forth, he shall be fined 600, if he does it through greed; if he does it through malico, the fine shall be heavier. Six Hundred'--Punas (says Aparārka, p. 789). | All this is purely declumatory, inore Arthavādı, not to be taken as literally true; as it is going to be declared by Manu himself that under certain conditions, the Shūdra does become released from servitudo-Medhātithi.

·LAW RELATING TO SERVANTS 75 [313] 'One who makes a slave of a member of the highest caste shall be fined the highest amercement'. * Highest caste'-Brahmana.--'Highest amercement-i.e. 1,000 Panas. And Kätyāyana [314] 'If one buys or sells a Brāhmaṇa woman, the King should annul the sale and punish all the parties concerned.' [315] 'When a woman of a respectable family comes to a man of her own accord, if he makes her a slave or transfers her to another person, he should be punished and the transaction should be annulled.' That is, when a well-born lady comes to a man of her own accord,-if he makes her a slave or hands her over to someone else, he should be fined. [316] 'If a man enjoys, as his slave, either his child's nurse or his servant's wife who is not his slave,--he should suffer the first amercement.' [317] 'If, in normal circumstances, a capable man sells a slave girl who is devoted to him (or, under another reading, whom he has enjoyed), and is loudly lamenting, he should be fined 200.' 'Bāladhātrī', 'Child's Nurse",—the woman who, even though a slave, is acting as the wet-nurse of his child.—'Adāsī', 'who is not his slave',--.e. who has only come to seek shelter under him.—Loudly lamenting'-not consenting to her sale. First amercement-i.e. a fine of 250 Panas. [For notes on Slavery, from Arthashästra, see Hindu Law in its Sources, Vol. I, page 290.] SECTION (C)-NON-PAYMENT OF WAGES [318] "The Master of a work shall pay the stipulated wages to the Hireling, at the commencement, at the middle and at the completion of the work,* as determined.' [319] 'If the amount of wages has not been previously settled (a) the trader, (b) the cowherd, and (c) the cultivator (servant) shall receive the tenth part of (a) the profit, (b) the cow-produce, and (c) the grains (respectively). 'Profit'—that has accrued from the business in which the trader has helped.-Cow-produce'-milk. Says Yajñavalkya (2.196) [320] 'Each man shall receive the wages in accordance with the work done by him.'t And Byhaspati (6.12-13) [321] "The Ploughman shall receive the third or fifth part (of the produce of the land ploughed): If the Ploughman is receiving food and clothing, he shall receive the fifth part; while, if he is dependent entirely upon a definito understanding, he shall receive the third part of the produce.' * In the proportion of 5 at commencement, 7 in the middle and 28 on completion, according to Pārijāta, says Vivādaratnākara (p. 156). † The exact amount payable being determined by an arbitrator, says Mitākşarā.

·76 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI & Upadhā' is understanding, agreement to some such effect as that- "Whatever shall be the produce of this land, the third part of that shall be given to you, and no food or clothing'; the servant engaged on such an understanding is called 'one who is dependent upon an understanding'; and such a labourer is to receive the third part of the produce. But if he is given food and clothing, then he is to receive only the fifth part of the produce. What Nārada (in Text 319 above) has said regarding the receiving of the tenth part—that refers to workers other than the Ploughman. Says Apastamba- [322] 'If the Ploughman runs away, and the work of the Employer suffers in consequence, he should be beaten with sticks. Similarly in the case of the Cattle-keeper running away; and in this latter case, his cattle also should be impounded.' Of the, 'Udvasataḥ-running away-Kināsha'-Ploughman—there should be beating with the stick. Similarly if the Cattle-keopor runs away; and in this case there should be the additional punishment in the form of the impounding of his cattle. Says Vrddha-Manu (323] 'Where no wages have been stipulated previously, the Labourer shall receive the wages fixed by persons expert in sea-voyage and experienced in regard to time and place.' * Expert in sea-voyagemi.e. well-versed in the matter of the wages due to traders. (Trade in general, according to Vivādaratnākara, p. 158.) Brhaspati (16.15) [324] 'If, after having received the wages, the Employee fails to do the work, though quito fit to do it,-he shall be made to pay twice as much as his wages, as fine, to the King, and refund the wages to the Employer. The construction is “Samarthaḥ san karma na karoti' ('Being quite able, if he does not do the work'). [325] 'Having received the wages, if the Labourer abandons the work, he should pay double tho amount of the wages; if lio has received no wages, he should pay (as fino) an amount cqual to his wages. The Labourers have also got to tako care of tho implements.' That is, in the ovent of the Employeo abandoning the work undertaken,- if he has received the wages, he should pay the double of what ho harus received,-if he has not received the wages, he should pay the same amount as the wages.-Bhrta' stands for the Plougliman and such omployoes.- Implementa'-such as tho Rope and other appertonances of a l'lough and other things. Says Nārada (6.5) - [326] 'After having promised to do soino work, if the Labourer fails to do it, he should be compelled to do the work and receive the wages.' * Says the Arthashāstra (3.13)-Whore ni wages have boon proviously settled, the Labourer shall be paid in accordance with the work done and tho oxigencies of time; the agricultural Labourer roceiving the tenth part of the crops,--tho cowherd, the tenth part of the buttor,--the Tradesman-Labouror, tho tonth part of the merchandise dealt with by him.

·LAW RELATING TO SERVANTS 77 And Vrddha-Manu- [327] 'If he does not do the work, he should be fined 200.' This refers to the man who has begun the work and then given it up. With regard to the man who does not start the work at all, Manu says (8.215)- [328] "If a Hireling, without being ill, does not perform the stipulated work, through arrogance,—he should be fined Eight Krşnalas, and should also have no wages paid to him.' [329] 'When a man, sick or well, does not get the stipulated work done, he shall not receive his wages,--even though the work be only slightly incomplete'-(Manu 8.217). [330] 'If the Employee who had been ill, on recovering, completes the work as originally stipulated, he shall receive his wages, even though it be after the lapse of a long time :-(Manu 8.216). Slightly incomplete' (Text 329)—i.o. of which a small portion remains to be done.- [Text 328].--If the man who has been ill, and bas consequently given up the work-returns, on recovery and completes the work,-oven if he does so after a long time, he receives his wages. Says Nāradan [331] 'If a Hireling abandons his work before the lapse of the stipulated time, he forfeits his wages. But if he leaves it through some fault of the Employer, then he should be paid for such portion of the work as he may have already done.' * Vişnu (5.153-157)- [332] 'A Hireling who abandons his work before the expiry of his term, shall forfeit the whole amount of the stipulated wages; and shall pay a fine of 100 Paņas to the King.If the Employer dismisses an Hireling before the expiry of his term, he shall pay his entire wages and also a fine of 100 Panas to the King, except when the Hireling has been at fault.' Mülyam'—Wages. Says Vrddha-Manu [333] 'If an Employee destroys anything through carelessness, he should be made to pay its equivalent; if he does it through malice, he should be made to pay double the price; but he shall not be made to pay if the article has been stolen by thieves, or burnt by fire, or washed away by floods.' 'Should be made to pay'-i.e. the Hireling should; this is clear from the context. If, however, the thing has been destroyed without any fault of his, he should not be made to pay anything. Says the Arthashāstra (3.14) If the Labourer is physically unable to do the work, or the work is too degrading, ,or he is ill or in trouble--and is consequently unable either to do the work or get it done, he is not to be punished; but he shall refund the wages to the Employer, who will get his work done by others. If there has been an agreement between the Employer and the Employee to the effect that the Employer shall not engage another Labourer, and the Employee shall not work for another Employee, then, if either party fail to keep his contract, he shall be fined 12 Panas.

·78 VIVĀDACHINTĀMA ŅI Says Byhaspati (16.17) [334] 'When a Hireling commits an improper act under orders from his Employer,--and for the benefit of the latter,--the fault shall lie with the Employer.' 'For the benefit of the Employer.-'Improper act', such as theft,* In the Matsya-Purāņa, we read- [335] 'Having received his foe, if the Master does not impart instruction in his craft,--he should be fined the amount of the whole fee, by the righteous King.' Viddha-Manu [336] 'If the Employer dismisses the Hireling after having sold his mer. chandise, before reaching the stipulated destination,-he should pay also for that part of the journey which has not been traversed; but at the rate of only a half of the stipulated wages.' 'Agatasyāpi'—Even though he has traversed the stipulated journey, the wages of the Hireling should have to be paid; but only one half of the wages, for the untraversed part of the journey. Says Kātyāyana- [337] 'If the merchandise be confiscated or stolen on the way, the carrier is to receive his wages only for the distance actually traversed.' Asidhyēta'-becomes captured or confiscated (or stopped, according to Vivādaratnākara, p. 164) by some one. Byhaspati (16.18) [338] 'If the Employer does not pay the wages, after the work has been completed, he should be compelled by the King to pay it, -as also a proportionate fine.' Kätyāyana [339] 'If the Employer abandons, on the way, an assistant who is tired or ill,--and does not wait in a village for three days in order to enable him to recover, he should be fined the first amercement.' ' Assistant -ie. Hireling and the like. SECTION (D)-RULES RELATING TO PROFESSIONAL WOMEN Says Nārada [340] 'If a Professional Woman, having accepted her Fee, refusos to meet the man, she should be made to pay double the amount of the Feo. The man also who, having paid the Fee to her, refuses to meet her, should forfeit the Fee paid by him.' * Such as demolishing a boundary with a view to enlarging the employer's fields--(Smrtichandrikā, p. 476).

·LAW RELATING TO SERVANTS 79 Smrti says- [341] 'If the Professional Woman is ill or tired or in distress, or engaged in work for the King, -and consequently does not come to a man when invited, she is not to be regarded as having done anything wrong.' 'Avāchyā'-faultless.-Vadavā' here stands for the Professional Woman. In the Matsya-Purana, we read [342] 'If a man had recourse to intercourse in an improper part of her body, or make her associate with several men,-he should be made to pay eight times the Fee, and also an equal amount as Fine.' "Improper part'-such as the Mouth. Or having got her for himself alone, if he makes her associate with several men, he should pay to the Woman eight times her fee, and also an equal amount to the King as fine. Again- [343] 'If one brings over the Professional Woman for the purpose of one man, while naming to her some one else, he should pay a fine of 1 Måşa of Gold to the King.' [344] 'Having invited the Professional Woman, if one does not give her satisfaction, he should be made to pay double of the Fee; double also as fine to the King. In this way the Law is not disobeyed.' [345] 'If several men meet any one Professional Woman, each of them should severally pay double the fee to her and also another double as fine to the King.' Says Nāradam [346] 'In disputes arising in connection Professional Women, leading Professional Women, as also their lovers living in their houses, decide all matters.' SECTION (E)-RULES RELATING TO THE HIRING OF HOUSES, ETC. [Nārada, p. 20-21.] [347] 'If a man has built a house on land belonging to another, and lives in it, paying rent to the land-owner,--he may take away with him, when he goes out, the thatch, the timber, the bricks and other materials.' [348] 'If he has been residing on land belonging to another without paying rent and against that man's wishes,-he shall go out of it and shall not take with him, on leaving, the building materials.' Says Kātyāyanam [349] 'Having taken on hire a house or estate or a shop, so long as he does not restore them to the owner, he should be made to pay the hire.' Waters here stands for the water-reservoir dug by another person and not yet consecrated to public use. [350] 'After having engaged an elephant, & horse, an Ox, a mule, or a camel, -one must be made to pay the hire so long as he does not restore the animal to the owner.'

·80 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI Says Vyddha-Manu [351] 'If a man has hired a cart, but does not go out and refuses to pay the hire,--he should be compelled to pay the hire, even though the hire may not have been actually earned.' The Cart' includes the Ox, the Boat and such other things also.- Not earned'.i.e. even if the cart has not been used. Says Näradan [352] 'If one has obtained utensils on hire, he should return them to the owner after the expiry of the stipulated time. If there has been any damage or loss, it should be made good by the hirer; except when such loss or damage has been due to a supernatural calamity.' That is, if what is returned is not exactly in the condition in which it had been taken, or if it has been lost in course of time, except through some act of God or King, -it should be made good by the hirer.

·CHAPTER VII Rules relating to the Owner and Keeper of Cattle * On this point says Manu“ [353] 'If the hired Cattle-keeper is one paid with milk, he shall, with the Owner's permission, milk the best of ten cows; this shall be the Keeper's wages, if he receives no other wages. * Kșīrabhști' is one who is paid his wages in milk. He shall milk the one cow that may be the best among ten cows;--when he receives no other wages', -in the shape of food and clothing, etc.--This refers to the Keeper who looks after milch cows only. As regards cases where the Keeper looks after milch as well as dry cows, says Nārada (6.10) [354] 'For tending a hundred cows, the Keeper shall get a heifer annually; for tending two hundred cows, he shall get a milch cow every year; and he shall get the milk of all the cows tended by him on every eighth day.' Vatsatarī', 'heifer', is the three-year f old cow. As many cows as may be in milk,--the milk of all those he will get as wages, every eighth day. Says Brhaspati- [355] 'One supported by milch cows should get the milk of all the cows every eighth day.' One'i.e. the Cattle-keeper. And Närada (6.11) [356] 'The Owner shall make over the cows to the Keeper every morning; and the Keeper shall bring them back to the Owner in the evening, after they have had their feed and drink.'S * Best'-according to one reading, the worst. Says Medhātithi-The wages are to be commensurate with the labour involved in the tending. The exact wages in each case shall be determined according to the principle that if he receives nothing else in the shape of subsistence, he shall take the milk given by one cow.-Thus for the work of looking after milch and non-milch cows, heifers, bulls and calves, the Owner shall apportion to the keeper sometimes the third, sometimes the fourth, part of the entire milk-produce. This is a mere indication; in each case, local custom has to be followed. If some of the cows are dry, the wages payable are determined on the basis of their normal milk-produce when in milk-(Parāsharamadhava, p. 263). † Vivādaratnākara (p. 170) has two years'; so also Piramitrodaya (p. 442) and Parāsharamadhava (p. 263).--The milk of all the cows' is to be taken only with the keeper of two hundred cows, according to Madanaratna--but to both the keeper of 100 as well as that of 200 cows, according to Kalpataru ;-says Viramitrodoya (p. 443), which itself favours the former view. This rule is meant for cases where no special wages have been previously settledsay Smrtichandrikā (p. 483), Parăsharamādhava (p. 263) and Väramitrodoya (p. 433). The keeper of 200 cows is meant here, says Viramitrodoya (p. 433). The word 'cows' here stands for cattle in general;- says Smrtiohandrika (p. 484). 6 ·82 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Chirņāh'-have taken their feed of grass;—pītāḥ-have taken water. Yajñavalkya (2.164) [357] "The Keeper shall bring back and restore to the Owner the cattle exactly in the same condition in which they had been made over to him. If any of the cattle happen to die or get lost, through his carelessness, the hired Keeper shall be made to make it good.' And Manu (8.230) [358] 'During the day, the responsibility (for the safety of the cattle) rests with the Keeper,--and during the night, with the Owner, if in his owa house; † if otherwise, the responsibility for their safety shall rest with the Keeper.' Manu (8.233) and Näradam [359] "If the cattle has been taken away openly by thieves, the Keeper shall not be called upon to make it good if he informs his own Master of it at the proper place and time.' * 'Place'-such as may facilitate the search; so also 'time'. Vyāsa (360] 'No blame lies with the Keeper if the cattle is lost or stolen,- either after the Keeper himself has been made captive, or when the whole village has been pillaged, or when there are disturbances in the Kingdom.' And Brhaspati [361] "The Keeper should guard the cattle against dangers from insects, thieves and tigers, as also from caves and pits. He should try his best and should cry for help, and also inform the Master.' “Shvabhra' is pit; and 'darī' is cave. [362] 'If he does not try his best, or not cry for help, or does not inform the Master, then he should bear the loss and also pay a fine to the King.' * Bear the loss?mi.e. pay for it. Says Manu (8.232) [363] 'The Keeper alone is to make good what has become lost, or been destroyed by worms, or killed by dogs, or has perished in an unsafe place, if it was left without human aid.' "Naştam'-i.e. taken away by thieves and others.--'Without human aid'--.e. without such aid as was well within the capacity of the Keeper. If any animal has become thus 'lost', etc., it has been due to the remissness * "Nāradah', in the printed text is wrong. It should be 'Manuh' as in Ma. I 'If in his house mi.e. if they have been safely penned in the cattle-shed by the Keeper. - If otherwise -i.e. if they have not been brought into the house, and have been kept in the pastures, during the night also-Medhätithi). * 'Openly'-with beat of drums ;-this is meant to indicate the helplessness of the Keeper. At the proper time-i.e. immediately after the occurrence,'at the proper place wherever the Master may be. In case the Keeper conveys the information to the Master after a long time, the blame shall lie with him (Medhatithi). бв ·RULES RELATING TO THE OWNER AND KEEPER OF CATTLE 83 of the Keeper; and this is the reason why he should be made to make good the loss. * Says Yājñavalkya (2.165)- [364] 'In the event of the cattle being destroyed on account of some fault of the Keeper's, punishment shall be inflicted on the Keeper, in the shape of a fine of thirteen Paņas and a half; and he shall also pay the price to the Owner.'ť Vişnu (5.139) [365] 'If the Keeper milks a cow without the Owner's permission, he should pay a fine of 25 Kärşāpaņas.' In the Brahma-Purāna we read- [366] 'If the cowherd who has received his wages abandons the cows in the wild forest and wanders about in the village, he should be killed (punished) by the King; so also the man with the lancet" roaming in the forests.' 'The man with the lancet' is the Barber. [367] 'If through disease or some other cause, the cow dies in the house, then the Owner of the cow should be punished.--if he has not paid the wages of the Keeper.' Says Nārada (6.17) [368] 'It is according to these principles that disputes arising with all Keepers have to be settled. In the event of the death of the ani als, the Keeper becomes cleared (of blame) by producing the tail, the hors and the rest.' What is meant is that he should prove, by some means or the other, that the animal has really died. **Dogs-This stands for jackals, wolves, tigers and other wild animals, * Human aid'-such as remaining near the cattle, lighting fires for keeping away wild animals and so forth. In a case where the Keeper himself has been on the point of death, and has been unable to scare away the animals or where the cattle themselves, while stampeding, have fallen into a pit, and so on-the Keeper shall not be held responsible--(Medhātithi). t‘Sārdhatrayodasha' has been taken as 131 by A parārku and Mitäkşarā; but as 121 by Paräsharomādhava (p. 263) and Varamitrodaya (p. 445).-Dravyam has been taken by Mitakşarā to mean the price of the animal as computed by impartial arbitrators.

·CHAPTER VIII Breach of Customs and Conventions 2 Says Brhaspati (17.5-6 et seq.). [369] 'A compact formed among villagers, companies and tribes is called Convention. Such conventions are made at times of calamity and also in regard to acts of piety.-When danger is apprehended from highway. men, it is regarded as a calamity common to all; and such danger should be repelled by all, not by any one man.'* [370] 'Mutual confidence having been previously established by oath, or by written compacts, or by sureties,--they shall set about their work -Brhaspati 17.7). [371] 'Honest men, learned in the Veda and in Dharma, self-controlled, able, sprung from noble families, and efficient in all kinds of work, shall be appointed as Heads (of the Corporation)-(Ibid. 17.9). [372] 'Two, three or five persons shall be appointed as advisers of the Corporation; their advice shall be followed by the villagers, companies and tribes -(Brhaspati 17.10). * Grāma' here stands for the Corporation of the inhabitants of the village; and 'Gana' companies, or groups, of Brahmaņas, etc. Says Yājñavalkya (2.188) [373] 'All members of the Corporation shall follow the advice of the Advisers; one who goes against it, shall be fined the first amercement.' [374] 'Among them, if any one obstructs what is reasonable, or gives no opportunity to the speaker to speak, or urges what is unreasonable, -he should be fined the first amercement:-(Kātyāyana). Says Närada (10.2)- [375] 'Among heretical sects, citizens, trade-guilds, unions, tribes and other corporate bodies,--the King should maintain the Conventions; as also in regard to fortified towns and the open country.' † ** Acts of piety ----such as the repairing of temples, tanks and the like. The Conventions referred to are such 45—(1) raising a common fund by subscriptions, during famines, (2) arranging to supply one armed guard at every house-hold, when danger from robbers is apprehended, (3) organising a deputation to wait upon the King for the redressing of certain common grievances. † The Conventions referred to are as follows:-(a) Among Heretical Sects, there are conventions for the governance of monasteries and other institutions; (6) among corporations of merchants trading in diverse kinds of merchandise, there are such conventions as that 'members who ill-treat messengers should be punished'; (c) among trade-guilds, there are conventions regarding monopolies and prices(d) among unions of elephant-drivers and horse-riders and (e) troops' of soldiers, there are such conventions as ‘no one shall join in battle except in the company of others';-) among tribes-groups of relations, there are such conventions as, the Ear-piercing ceremony shall be performed during the fifth ·BREACH OF OUSTOMS AND CONVENTIONS 85 6 Pāşanda'--sects outside the pale of the Vedic Religion.—'Naigama'- citizens.-'Pūga-Corporation of traders and others.-' Dräta'-Troops of soldiers and others. The term 'ādi' including all societies, those named are to be taken only as illustrative. Says Yajñavallya (2.186) [376] 'Whatever duty devolves izpon a man by virtue of Convention, that he shall carefully perform, so far as it may not conflict with his religious duties; so also shall he perform the duties imposed by the King.' By virtue of Convention such as those calculated to bring prosperity and security to the Corporation; e.g. 'Every month, all members of the Corporation present themselves before the King':-Duties imposed by the King', -such as "all you, Sirs, will kindly perform propitiatory rites for the welfare of the Kingdom.'-One should never transgress such conventions.* Kātyāyana [377] 'If one does not perform the duties promulgated by the King, he incurs sin and deserves to be despised and punished as offending against the King's Government.' Yājñavalkya (2.187)-- [378] 'If any member of the Corporation should misappropriate the property of the Corporation, or transgress its Conventions,--the King shall confiscate his entire property and banish him from the Kingdom.' † Kātyāyana- [379] 'One who is given to violence, one who sows dissension, one who injures the property of the Corporation,-all these should be turned out of the community after reporting to the King; so says Bhrgu.'I Referring to Conventions', Brhaspati goes on to say (17.13)- [380] 'It should be obeyed by all. If a member, who is able to do so, fails to act up to the Convention, he shall be punished with confiscation of his entire property and banishment from the town. If any one breaks it or ignores it, the fine prescribed for him is six Nişkas of four Suvarnas each.' In this same connection having mentioned the 'six Nişkas' Manu (8.221) goes on to add further'a silver Shatamāna'. Though it is well known that a Nişka is made up of four Suvarnas, yet the qualification 'of four Suvarnas each' has been added in the texts of p. 523). year of the child';~(9) in regard to 'fortified towns', there are such conventions as no food shall be sold outside ' ;-(h) in regard to the 'open country, there are conventions regarding duties to be realised from foreign traders (Smstichandrikā, * Such rules would be 'in conflict with one's religious duties' if the time fixed for the said attendance were the same as that prescribed for the Twilight Prayers for instance. † This applies to cases where the offence is very serious. For minor offences of this kind, the penalty shall be as prescribed by Manu, p. 221--i.e. a fine of 6 Niskas, 4 Suvarnas and one silver Shatamāna (Aparārka and Mitākṣarā). I In some digests, this text is read with 'nşpach' in place of 'nļpē', in which case the meaning would be that these persons are to be turned out by the King after due notification.

·86 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI Brhaspati and Manu), in order to preclude those other ‘Nişkas' which have been declared to contain 150 Suvarnas, and 5 Suvarnas. The 'Shatamāna' is equal to 320 Rattis.* [381] 'One who is malicious, or a back-biter, or a sower of dissention, or given to violence, or inimically disposed towards the Guild, the Corporation or the King, shall be banished therefrom '-(Brhaspati 17.16). 'Aruntuda'-one who hurts the vitals.-Sūckaka'--the back-biter. Kätyāyana- [382] 'If, among persons entitled to eat out of the same dish, or in the same line, -any one refuses to eat with another, without indicating any defect in that person,-he shall be punished.' Brhaspati (17.21), [383] "Those persons who combine and conspire to cheat the State of the royal dues should be made to pay eight times as much ;-50 also the absconding traders.' * Rajabhāgam' --what is payable to the King. Says Yājñavalkya (2.190) [384] 'When a member is sent out on some business of the Corporation, whatever he may obtain on this mission, he shall make over to the Corporation; if he fails to do so, he should be made to pay eleven times as much.' And Brhaspati (17.22) [385] 'Whatever may be obtained by any one member shall belong equally to all the members of the Corporation.' Katyāyana- [386] 'If a debt contracted in the name of the Corporation has been eaten up by any member of it, or has been used for his own purpose, -it shall be payable by that member.' 'In the name of the Corporation' i.e. under the pretext that it is on behalf of the Corporation;-such a debt shall be payable by the member who contracted the debt. [387] 'Whoever might have entered the Guilds or Corporations or Trade unions, shall share equally their assets and liabilities.' * Under 8.220, Manu has laid down banishment' as penalty for the breach of Convention. That is meant for cases where the breach has been due to groed; the present section lays down the penalty for cases where the breach has been due to ignorance(Medhātithi). According to Aparārka (p. 793), Mitākşarā (2.187), Parāsharamadhava (p. 253) and Varamitrodaya (p. 429)—these texts (of Brhaspati and Manu) lay down four distinct penalties (1) Banishment, (2) the fine of 6 Nişkas, (3) the fine of 4 Suvarnas and (4) the fine of one Shatamana; and which one shall be inflicted in a particular case shall be determined by the caste, the learning and other qualifications of the offender, or (according to Aparārka) by the nature of the offence.--Medhātithi has taken Banishment as one meant for the more serious cases of Breach, and the Fines as for cases where the offence is less serious.Diramitrodaya does not accept the view that the caste of the offender can be a determining factor.

·BREACH OF CUSTOMS AND CONVENTIONS 87 That is, whoever may have become members, in the past, of the Corporation of traders and others, with the consent of all the members, shall all share equally in the previous assets and liabilities as also in the initial capital of the Corporation. [388] 'Every member of a Corporation shares equally in all its assets, relating to articles of food, other divisible properties, slaves * and religious acts. The man who has gone out for some purpose of his own shall not be entitled to any shares.' • Articles of food'-such as sweet-meats and the like.-Pragata'-is the man who has one out of the Corporation of his own accord, for some specific purpose of his own; such a person shall not be entitled to any shares. * In Vivādaratnākara (p. 188) and other digests, we find 'dāna' in place of dāsa';'dāna' is charity.

·CHAPTER IX Rescission of Sale - 6 Says Nārada (8.4)- [389] 'When a man has sold a property for a certain price, if he does not deliver it to the purchaser, he shall be made to deliver the property along with its produce, if it is immovable property,--and along with profits accruing from it, if it is movable.'-If there has been a fall in the market-value of the property during the interval, the purchaser shall receive the property along with the difference in the two values). - This is the rule relating to cases where the parties are inhabitants of the same place. In the case of persons trading abroad, the profit derived from the foreign trade (shall be delivered to the purchaser).' Sthāvarasya--of land and other immovable properties; -Kşaya'- the loss sustained in the shape of the produce, in the shape of grains, etc.; in the case of movable property, such as the ox and the like--the 'profit' involved is in the shape of the using and driving of the animal;—in the case of Cows, it is in the shape of the milk. In case the article purchased—such as Gems and the like,-and not delivered, loses its market value-gradually, through lapse of time,-then it should be delivered to the purchaser, along with the loss in its value. In the case of persons trading in foreign lands,-i.e. those who travel about in foreign countries, the vendor shall pay the profit that he may have made during such journeyings. Says Vişnu- [390] 'If a man does not deliver to the purchaser the goods sold to him, and the price received, he shall be made to deliver it, along with interest; and he shall be fined 100 Paņas by the King.' All this should be understood as referring to the case where the Vendor has received the full price; so that there is no wrong done if the article is detained for the purpose of realising the price. This has been thus declared. by Nārada (8.10). (391] All these rules apply to cases where the price has been paid by the Purchaser. Until the price has been paid, no blame can attach to the Seller, except when there has been an agreement to the contrary.' Nārada (8.6) again- [392] 'If the article sold happens to be damaged, or destroyed by fire or carried off, the loss shall devolve upon the seller who did not deliver it after the sale.' And Yājñavalkya (2.256) [393] 'If damage is done to the article sold, through an act of God or of the King, the loss devolves upon the Seller,-if he has failed to deliver the article sold, even though requested to do so.'* * For the satisfaction of the purchaser, the seller should deliver to him another article similar to the one sold, or refund the price paid-(Aparārka and Mitāksarā).

·RESCISSION OF SALE 89 [394] 'If the Purchaser refuses to accept delivery of the article sold to him, he shall suffer the same penalties as those prescribed for the Seller refusing to deliver the goods sold '-(Nārada). Manu (8.222-223, 228) [395] 'After having bought or sold an article, if the Buyer or Seller repents of it, he should return or take back that article within ten days of the transaction; after ten days he shall not return or take it back; if he does return or take it back, he shall be fined by the King 600 Panas.'-In connection with any transaction, if there is repentance on the part of any party, he should be brought to the path of rectitude in the said manner.' And Katyāyana- [396] 'If the Purchaser does not receive the article when made available, or, if the Seller does not deliver the sold article in an unsoiled condition to the Purchaser,--he shall be allowed to recover what belongs to him, on paying the tenth part of the price agreed upon.' 'Prāptam'--made available to him, placed at his disposal. In regard to the case where the article is not placed at the disposal of the Purchaser, the same authority says [397] 'But the said penalty shall not be inflicted (upon the Purchaser) if the article has not been made available, even though the transaction has been completed. This rule shall be applied only within ten days of the sale; after the ten days, there can be no rescission of the sale.' ** Kriyākāra' is transaction, in the shape of attestation by witnesses on the sale-deed executed and so forth-oven when all this has been done, if the article sold has not been placed at his disposal, then, if, within the timelimit, he returns it to the Seller,--the Purchaser does not have to suffer the tenth part of the price. What is meant is that if the article sold has a perceptible defect, there can be no rescission after the time-limit; when, how. ever, the article is entirely defective, and the Seller has concealed the defects and sold it deceitfully,--it may be returned publicly, even after the expiry of the time-limit. Says Brhaspati (18.4) [398] "The foolish man, who, knowing an article to be defective, sells it, shall be compelled to pay twice its price to the Purchaser, and a fine of the same amount to the King.' [399] 'What has been sold by one who is intoxicated or insane,-at a very low price, or under the spell of fear. -or by one who is not his own master,—or by an idiot,-should be given up (by the Purchaser), and it may be taken back (by the Seller).' 'It should be given up'-it is what ought to be given up, by the Purchaser; and it may be taken back-by the Seller.-One who is not his own master? either by nature or through some cause.† † Chintāmaņi and Vivādaratnākara (p. 192) read 'Kriyākāre' and explain it as above; Smytichandrikā (p. 511) however, reads. Kriyākāle' and explains it as 'when the time has arrived for the purchaser to use the article'. 1 According to Vivādaratnākara (p. 193), this rescission may take place even after the lapse of the statutory ten days.

·90 VIVADACHINTAMANI [400] 'When a man has sold an article to one person, and delivers it to another, he shall be made to repay twice the price, to the Purchaser, and also a fine equal to the same amount.' The 'another person meant is one who is not in any way related to the former person, and who has not been deputed by him to receive the article. According to Vivādaratnākara (p. 192), this penalty is meant for the case where the Seller has carried on negotiations regarding the price with one man, but has actually sold it to another. Similarly [401] 'When the Purchaser has not accepted the article sold when delivered to him,--if the Seller were to sell it to another person, he would be doing nothing wrong.' And Yājñavalkya (2.255)- [402] 'If the first Purchaser does not receive th article and delivered to him, it may be sold again; if the article has, in the meantime, suffered any damage on account of the said Purchaser's fault, the loss shall devolve on that Purchaser.' So also (Nārada) [403] 'When the bargain has been clinched by the payment of Earnestmoney, (if the transaction should fail),--the Seller shall pay double the amount of that money.' That is, when the Seller has agreed to sell his commodity and has accepted money advanced by the purchaser,--this money is called 'Earnest-money' (satyankāra', 'Bargain-clincher'); --if subsequently the Seller does not agree to sell the article, he should repay to the Purchaser double the amount of the Earnest-money. Says Nārada (8.12)- [404] 'It is for the sake of profit that merchants carry on the buying and selling of all sorts of merchandise; that profit is in proportion to the high or low prices paid for the things. Merchants therefore shall fix a fair price for their commodity, in accordance with the nature of the locality and the season,-and refrain from dishonourable dealings. Such is the right method of trade.' What has been said above in connection with buying-transactions, that there shall be a time-limit of ten days (see Text No. 395 above), is meant only for all kinds of grains '; as declared by Vyāsa and Nārada in the following text- [405] 'Leather, Wood, Yarn, Wine extracted from grains, liquids, cloth, base metals and gold,these commodities shall be examined immediately after the sale. Milch cattle shall be tested for three days; and beasts of burden for five days; in the case of pearls, diamonds, corals and other precious stones, the period of testing may extend to seven days; male slaves shall be tested for a fortnight, and female slaves for a month; grains of all sorts, for a month; Iron and Cloth for one day.' Yajñavalkya (2.177)- [406] 'Seeds and grains may be examined for ten days; Iron for one day; beasts of burden for five days; precious stones for seven days; female ·RESCISSION OF SALE 91 slaves for a month; milch cattle for three days and male slaves for fifteen days.' The same has been declared by Brhaspati- [407] 'If before this, some defect should appear in the article sold, it should be returned to the Seller and the Purchaser shall receive back the price paid.' Even if the article is already defective, it should be returned before the said time-limit, as declared by Katyāyana- [408] ‘When an article has been purchased unwittingly, without due examination,--if it is, later on, found to be defective, it may be returned to the Seller, within the time fixed, not otherwise." Within time'-i.e. within the time laid down for the examination of the various kinds of commodities.--Not otherwise'-i.e. not after the lapse of the said time. With reference to things in which the Purchaser has subsequently detected a defect, says Nārada (9.7) [409] 'A worn garment, in a ragged condition and soiled with dirt, cannot be returned to the Seller, if it was in that condition when purchased.' All this refers to cases where the article has been taken without waiting for the time laid down for examination. Says Yajñavalkya (2.258) [410] 'If a merchant, not knowing the likely profit and loss involved, has purchased a commodity, he shall not seek to rescind the sale. If he does, he becomes liable to be fined the sixth part of the price paid.' † Nārada also [411] 'Having made a purchase, the wise merchant shall not repent of it; he should find out, beforehand, the likely profit and loss on the commodity. [412] The intending Purchaser himself shall, before purchasing an article, examine it, in order to find out its good and bad points; when the thing has been examined and approved of, and then purchased,-the Purchaser shall not give it up.' * All these rules refer to cases where the thing has been purchased without previous examination,-says Vivādaratnākara (p. 197). † The simple meaning of this text is as given above; which is in accordance with the explanation provided by Aparārka. According to the Mitākṣarā however, the meaning is as follows:-When a commodity has been sold and bought, the Purchaser may ask for the rescission of the transaction within the prescribed time, only if he finds out, after the sale, that the price of the commodity, at rates prevalent at the time of the transaction, should be lower than what he has paid;- and the Seller may ask for its rescission only if he finds out that the price should be higher than what he has charged. If either of them acts contrary to this, he should be fined the sixth part of the price paid. The Mitākṣarā goes on to add-There are only three grounds for rescission of sale :-(1) Detection of some defect in the article, (2) too high price, and (3) too low price. In the absence of any of these reasons, if either party asks for rescission, even within the prescribed time, he shall be fined. Even when the above grounds are present, if the rescission is asked for after the lapse of the prescribed time, the party asking for it shall be fined.

·92 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Also Brhaspati (18.3) [413] 'The Purchaser should examine the thing himself and also show it to others; when after it has been examined and approved by several men, it is purchased,--the Purchaser should not return it.' Even before the prescribed time-limit, the thing may be returned; as says Nārada (9.2-3) [414] 'Having purchased a commodity for a certain price, if the Purchaser thinks that he has not done well in making the purchase, he should return it, in the same condition, to the Seller, on the same day. If he returns it on the second day, the Purchaser shall suffer the thirtieth part of the price paid; if on the third day, he shall suffer double of the thirtieth part; after the third day, the thing must remain with the Purchaser.' This applies to cases where the examination has to be made within three days.* In connection with things like anilch cattle, Kätyāyana has declared as follows [415] 'Having purchased a milch cattle or such other things, if the Purchaser repent of it, and return it, though it is flawless,-he should bear the penalty of having to pay at the same time the tenth part of the price paid. At the same time-i.e. at the time that he returns the cattle. This nile refers to a case where the Purchaser has not taken possession of the animal sold. In the case where the Purchaser has taken possession of the animal, the rule applicable is the following t- [416] "Having purchased an article, if the Purchaser repent of it after it has come to his hands, he may relinquish it, after paying the sixth part of the price paid ;-so says Bhrgu.' * This rule is meant to apply to cases where the article, even after being purchased, still continues to remain 'merchandise', in the sense that it is laid out for sale by the tradesman who bought it from a fellow-trader only for selling it on his own account; i.e. to cases of mutual transaction among tradesmen themselves. In all other cases, the rule is as laid down by Manu 8.222 (Text No. 395 above) (Medhātithi on Manu 8.222). "In the same condition-if the article has been damaged in any way, the Purchaser shall pay to the Seller what may be adjudged by arbitrators to be the cost of repairing that damage (Smrtichandrikā, p. 519). According to Vivādaratnākara (p. 196), this rule refers to such commodities as suffer from use. "Thinks'--this implies that the actual presence of defects in the commodity is not necessary; it is sufficient if the Purchaser thinks that he has made a foolish bargain-(Vīramitrodaya, p. 435). † The right reading 'bhavişyad-vākyam-ato' is supplied by Ma. The penalty here prescribed-tenth part of the price is meant for those cases where the thing sold is such as does not suffer from being used. For cases where the thing is liable to suffer from use, the penalty to be paid is the sixth part of the price, as laid down in the next text--(Piramitrodaya, p. 435). Come to his hands'--this shows that the higher penalty of the sixth partis to be paid if the man returns the article after having received delivery of it, and the lower penalty of the tenth partis payable if he seeks rescission of the sale before the article has come to his hands-- Vivādaratnākara, p. 197).

·RESCISSION OF SALE 93 In a case where the defect of the article has been concealed before its sale,--the article may be returned even after the lapse of a long time; as said by Manu (8.203) [417] 'A commodity should not be sold, if it is mixed up with another, or with blemishes, or deficient, or remote, or hidden.' 'Anyat'--the superior commodity, of saffron for instance, 'mixed up with another-i.e. with the Kusumbha flower (which has the appearance of saffron).-Sāvadyam'-i.e. what has been licked by the dog.-Dūrē'- at a distance, which makes it impossible to perceive its real character. “Tirohitam'-hidden under cloth. When all this becomes known, even after a long time, the article may be returned.* * This points out some of the defects that would justify rescission of the sale (Smrtichandrikā, p. 520). With blemishes-i.e. which, having been kept in a closed box for a long time, has lost its quality and substance and has decayed, though still appearing as fresh; e.g. cloth and other commodities.-Deficient-less in weight or measure.- * Remote away from the place of the sale, and described as clothes or such things lying in my house in the village, What is hidden'-tied up in a piece of cloth.- Évery commodity shall be sold after having been fully exposed and described; sales effected otherwise are invalid-Medhătithi).

·CHAPTER X Boundary-Disputes Says Manu (8.245–251) [418] 'When a dispute regarding boundaries has arisen between two villages, the King shall settle the boundary during the month of Jyestha (June), when the land-marks are distinctly visible. He shall plant boundarytrees, such as the Nyagrodha, the Ashvattha, the Kimshuka, the Shālmalī, the Sāla and the Tamāla; as also trees with milky-juice;-also Thickets, Bamboos of various kinds, the Shami-tree, Creepers and Mounds, Reeds and Kubjaka-thickets; in such a way that the boundary may not become obliterated.Tanks, Water-reservoirs, Ponds and Fountains should be set up on boundary-lines; as also Temples.--He shall also set up hidden boundary-marks, --seeing that in the world there are constant trespasses due to the ignorance of boundaries among men.-He shall put in also Stones, Bones, Cow's Hair, Chaff, Ashes, Potsherds, Dry Cowdung, Bricks, Cinders, Pebbles and Sand, other such like things which the Earth may not eat up in time:these he shall secretly set up on the junctions of boundaries.' The trees and other things have been named here only by way of illustration. [419] 'By these signs shall the King determine the boundary between two contending parties; as also by long.continued possession and by flowing streams of water --Manu 8.252). Byhaspati (9.3) mentions the following- [420] 'Wells, Tanks, Pools, Large Trees, Gardens, Temples, Mounds, Channels, River-courses, Reeds, Shrubs, Piles of Stones.' [421] 'If, even on the inspection of the marks, there should be doubt, the settlement of the boundary-dispute shall depend upon witnesses (Manu 8.253). Again [422] 'In the absence of witnesses, four honest inhabitants of neighbouring villages shall make the determination of the boundary, in the presence of the King -Manu 8.258). [423] 'In the absence of the inhabitants of neighbouring villages, and original natives of the place (since gone abroad),—the King may examine the following frequenters of forests:-hunters, fowlers, cowherds, fishermen, root-diggers, snake-catchers, corn-gleaners and other foresters' -(Manu 8.259-260).

·BOUNDARY-DISPUTES 95 [424] 'As they, on being questioned in fairness, declare the marks of boundary. lines between two villages,-even so shall the King fix it :-(Manu 8.261). The method of deposition by these people also has been thus described by the same authority- [425] 'Placing earth on their heads, wearing garland and red clothes, and being sworn by their respective meritorious deeds, they shall depose honestly--(Manu 8.256).—In accordance with that shall the King lay down the boundary and also record the names of the deponents :-(Manu 8.255). Närada says- [426] 'The boundary should not be determined by any one man singlehanded, even though he be quite reliable. This work being an important one, its fulfilment should depend upon several persons '-(11.9). * [427] 'Should, however, a single man undertake to determine the boundary, he should do so after having kept a fast, in a collected frame of mind, wearing a garland of red flowers and red clothes, having placed earth on his head (11.10). 'Fasting' is the only condition laid down here, in addition to those laid down above (by Manu). On this subject, says Brhaspati- Brhaspati (19.11)- [428] 'But where there are no witnesses and no land-marks, even a single person accepted by both parties (may determine the boundary).' The compound 'jñātrchihna' is to be taken as 'jñātr?—knowing witnesses and chihna'-land-marks. Kātyāyana [429] "The King knowing his duty should not call wicked persons. Barring all wicked persons, he should bring together the inhabitants of neighbouring villages and natives of the place, and then in consultation with them, he should determine the boundary; such is the view of persons learned in the Law.' Sāmantas-are persons born in the neighbourhood of the disputed boundary. Says Manu (8.257) [430] 'If they decide in the right manner, they, being truthful witnesses, become purified; but if they decide wrongly, they should be made to pay a fine of 200 each.' 4 * This probibition regarding the single man is meant for those cases where no such man is available who enjoys the confidence of all the parties concerned,--says Mitäksarā (on 2.152). † In regard to all these methods, Mitākşarā (on Yājña. 2.152) remarks as follows:- The final decision of the King on the basis of such depositions shall be withheld for a month and a half; if during this time, nothing untoward happens to the deponent, either through an act of God or of the King,—which would be indicative of his having perjured himself,—then alone should his deposition be accepted as reliable and the matter decided accordingly; specially as recourse to ordeals is not permitted in the case of disputes relating to land.

·96 VIVADACHINTAMANI [431] 'If the neighbours depose falsely in connection with disputes relating to dykes, each of them should be fined the middle amercement - (attributed to Manu). Dykes'- i.e. Boundary-dykes. Says Katyāyana- [432] 'One village is the neighbour of another village, one field is said to be the neighbour of another field and one house is the neighbour of another house; because each of these pairs surrounds the other on all sides.' 'Each of these surrounds the other on all sides';-i.e. when one village surrounds another village on all sides,--then that village is to be treated as the 'witness' in regard to the boundary of that other village; similarly between field and field, and between house and house. [433] 'In a case where people living in the neighbouring village have subsequently gone abroad-to another place, they are called by the sages 'natives' (moulas) of their former habitation, because they were born there." Says Nārada- [434] 'Where there are no knowing witnesses, nor any marks, the King shall determine the boundary between the two villages, according to his own fair judgment.' Brhaspati (19.19-23) [435] 'When a piece of land has been taken from one village and given to another, either by a large river or by the King,—what should be the decision in this case ?-The land abandoned by a river, or granted by the King, belongs to him to whom it has been given. [436] 'If it were not so, there would be no acquisition among men, through the King or through luck.-Gain and Loss and also Life itself, among men are dependent upon Fate and on the King; therefore in all affairs, what has been effected by these should not be disturbed. [437] 'When a river has been fixed as the boundary between two villages, however small it might become through use or fall, --if any one disturbs it, he deserves to be punished. (438] "There may be erosion by a river on one side, and consequent gain of land on the other; this loss or gain should not be disturbed.' That is, the new land that has accrued on one side, by the erosion of the land on the other side, should belong to the owner of the former. [439] "When land is carried away by the swift current of a river, overflowing a tilled piece of land,-its previous owner shall recover it (when the flood has subsided).' That is, even though the river may have run over the whole plot, it remains the property of its previous owner. [440] "When land has been taken away by the King from one person, through anger or greed, or under a fraudulent pretext,--and bestowed ·BOUNDARY-DISPUTES 97 upon another more qualified person as a mark of favour-such a gift shall not be regarded as valid.' [441] 'When, however, a piece of land is being enjoyed by a person, without legitimate title to its ownership,—if that land is taken from him and given to another person, such a gift shall not be disturbed.' What is meant is that if the boundary has been fixed by the King under the influence of anger and other passions, it shall be set aside: otherwise, it shall be maintained. Says Yajñavalkya (2.154) [442] 'Orchards, Temple-grounds, Tanks and Wells, Gardens and Houses, and also Rain-water Drains, in regard to the boundaries of these also, these same rules are applicable.' And Manu (8.262) [443] 'In the case of fields, wells, tanks, gardens and houses--the decision regarding boundaries is dependent on neighbours.' * Byhaspati (19.24) [444] 'If a house, a water-reservoir, a shop or such thing, has been used by a man in a certain manner, ever since the time of the foundation (of the village or town),--his possession shall not be disturbed.' † [445] 'A window, or water-drain, or projections, or platforms, or a four-doored room, or eaves,-if they have been there from before,shall not be disturbed.' * Praņālī’ is water-drain;-- niryūhavedikā' is projecting platform;- chatuḥshāla' room with four doors;—'syandanikā'-ends of roofs, eaves; popularly known as 'ohārī' (?). [446] "The Plinth, the Water-drain, the Exit and the Window,-these shall not be encroached upon; one who encroaches upon the water drain or the foundation shall be punished.' [447] 'These, however, shall not be added afresh after the foundation (of the village).-One shall not erect an opening or a water-drain towards the house of another person.' ‘Mekholā -is the basic plinth.—'Bhrama'-is water-drain.- Nişkāsa'- is the way to go out, exit.—'Na uparodhayet'-one shall not encroach upon.- Dretipäta', 'opening', is window. Says Brhaspati (19.26) [448] 'A latrine, a fire-place, a pit, or a receptacle for leavings should never be set up very close to the wall of another person.' Varchah-sthäna'-is the latrine.-Atyörät'--very close. 6 * This text has been added with a view to preclude the evidence of hunters and foresters, etc.-says Medhātithi. † This refers to the courtyard, gates and windows and other details appertaining to the house; these shall not be disturbed by the neighbours;—ever since, etc.?- this shows that later additions may be disturbed if objected to by the neighboursam (Smrtichandrikā, p. 550). 7 ·98 VIVĀDACHINTĀMANI And Kätyāyana- [449] 'The Privy, the Urinal, the Water-reservoir and the Oil-press-as also the Fire-place and the Pit-should be set up at least two cubits removed from the wall of another person.' Chakra' stands for the Oil-press and such other structures. Brhaspati (19.27) [450] 'The passage by which men and cattle come and go without let or hindrance is called a Path; and this shall not be obstructed by any one.' Katyāyana- [451] 'When trees have grown on the boundary-line, the flowers and fruits growing on them should be made over to the owners of the two plots.' The construction is--dvayoḥ kşetrayoḥ svāmişu', 'to the owners of the two plots'. [452] 'If trees growing in one man's plot have their branches spreading over another man's plot, that man should be regarded as the owner over whose plot they (the branches) have spread.' * Samsthitāḥ' is to be taken with 'shākhāḥ, branches. [463] 'If a man, except under abnormal circumstances, throws unclean things on the public road, he should pay a fine of 2 Kārşāpanas and clean the road of the impurities '-(Manu 9.282). [454] 'If it is done by a man in distress, or by one very old, or by a pregnant woman, or by a child,--these shall be reprimanded, and the road is to be cleaned, such is the law'-(Manu 9.283). 'Paribhäşaņam', ‘reprimand?-i.e. such words as 'Don't do this again', -without any fine. Vişnu (5.106-107) [455] 'If one throws bones or rubbish on the path, or near gardens and water-reservoirs, he should be fined 100 Paņas and should remove the filth.' * Vyutkara' is rubbish,-popularly known as “gondala'.-What is meant is that if one throws urine, ordure and other filthy sweepings on the public road or near a water-reservoir, he should be fined 100 Panas.-What Manu has said (under Text 453 above) regarding the penalty consisting of 2 Panas, -is meant for cases where the quantity of rubbish thrown is not very filthy; hence it is not inconsistent with the present text (455).t-He should also remove the filth. Says Katyāyana- [456] 'If one spoils a tank, a garden, or a place of pilgrimage, by throwing unclean things-he should be made to cleanse it and also be fined the first amercement.' * With the exception of Vivādachintamani and Vivādaratnākarc (p. 223) nearly all other writers are agreed in taking the text to mean that 'that man is the owner in whose plot the tree stands'. † The printed edition reads 'tadanatishayitasāmarthyādinā', which is evidently wrong; the right reading is supplied by Ma-'tadatishayitamalatyāge'; which is supported also by the explanation provided by Vivādaratnākara (p. 2ž2). 7B ·BOUNDARY-DISPUTES 99 That is, the cleaning should be got done by the defiler and he should be fined 150 Panas. This applies to cases where the defiling has been done repeatedly. Says Manu (8.264)- [457] 'If a man appropriates, by means of intimidation, a house or a tank or a garden or a field, he shall be fined 500; if he does it through ignorance, the fine shall be 200.' That is, if a man arouses fear in the mind of the owners of the houses, and thereby appropriates the house and other things, he should be fined 500; if, however, he appropriates it under the misapprehension that it belongs to him, the fine shall be 200. Says Vrddha-Manu- [458] 'If a man, through arrogance, demolishes the boundary set up between two villages, he should be fined 200.' [459] 'For cutting a boundary-dyke, for encroaching upon a boundary, and for taking away a field, one should suffer the middle and highest amercements :-(Yājñavalkya 2.155). * 'Maryada'-in the form of dyke and such things ; -Simā'-boundary as marked by trees and such things. Shankha [460] 'If one cuts a dyke between two fields, he should be fined 108; on encroaching upon a boundary, 1,008; on taking away the water for a field, 108.' < ' Aştashatam', 'eight more than a hundred'; similarly' astasahasram' means eight more than a thousand'.-Kşetrodakam'the water needed for the cultivation of a field. Says Nārada (16.17) [461] "The erection by a person of a dyke in the middle of another man's field is not forbidden,-if it is conducive to considerable adrantage and only trifling loss. Advantage is always desirable, even at some cost.' That is, if a dyke in the middle of someone's field is conducive to great advantage to the owner of the field, and the disadvantage is only slight,- then its erection should not be forbidden by the owner of the field. Says Yajñavalkya (2.157) [462] "If a man erects a dyke in another man's field, without having informed him, -any produce that may be due to that dyke shall go to the owner of the field, or, failing him, to the King.' That is to say, if a dyke has been erected by someone in a field belonging to another person,—without his permission, the larger produce secured to other persons, by reason of that dyke, shall not go to the person who * In this text as found in Yājñavalkya (2.155), the reading is 'adhamottama. madhyamāh', and the meaning as explained by Aparārka and Mitākşarā is that ‘for cutting the boundary-dyke, the penalty is the lowest amercement, for encroaching upon a boundary, the penalty is the highest amercement,--and for taking away a field, the penalty is the middle amercement'. According to Arthashāstra (3.9)—the penalty for cutting a boundary-dyke is a fine of 24 Panas.

·100 VIVĀDACHINTĀMANI erected that dyke; it shall accrue to the owner of the field; or, in his absence, to the King. CULTIVATED AND UNCULTIVATED LANDS On this subject, says Närada- [463] 'If the tenants are either disabled, or dead, or lost, --if someone else should cultivate the field without hindrance, he shall take the produce of that cultivation.' *Disabled' --without necessary funds.- Lost'-left the country.—'He'- i.e. the man who has cultivated the field. “Kşetram'-i.e. the land lying Taste. [464] 'While the field is being thus cultivated, if the original tenant happen to return, he shall pay the whole expense incurred in cultivating the waste land and then recover possession of the land.' 'Khilopachāra' is the compensation for the money and labour spent over the cultivation of the land. Kālyāyana- [465] 'If the original holder is unable to pay the expenses incurred in the cultivation of the waste land, the man who has cultivated it shall take the produce of the land, less by its eighth part; it shall go on like this for eight years; after which the land reverts entirely to the original holder.' That is, out of the land, the former owner shall get the eighth part, and the cultivator shall get the seven parts; this will go on for eight years; after that the former owner shall recover the whole land, without paying any compensation for the expenses incurred in the cultivation. This applies to the case of waste lands the cultivating of which is extremely difficult. [466] 'If the land is left uncultivated for one year, it is regarded as half-waste; if for three years, it is waste; if for five years, then it is as good as a forest '(Nārada 11.26). That is, if the land is not cultivated for one year, it is 'half-waste '; if it lies uncultivated for three years, it is 'waste'; if it is left uncultivated for five years, it becomes & forest. Brhaspati (19.29) [467] 'When a man has taken a field on lease, he shall carry on the sowing, fencing and reaping of the harvest. If he fails to do this, he should be made to make good to the landlord the value of the estimated average annual crop.' Shadah' is crop.--'Madhyam'-average, of the produce. Vyāsa [468] ‘After having taken a field on lease, if the lossee fails to cultivate it, or get it cultivated, he should be made to pay the value of the estimated produce to the land-owner, and an equal amount to the King as fine.' 6 ·BOUNDARY-DISPUTES 101 What is to be given in what sort of field has been thus declared [469] 'If the land has been lying waste for a long time, the lessee shall pay the value of the tenth part of the produce; if the land is one that has been under cultivation, the value of the eighth part of the produce; if the land has been prepared, the value of the sixth part of the produce ' -(Vyāsa). All this refers to the average of the produce; as declared by Brhaspati (Text No. 467 above). Hence in the case of a field which is like a 'forest', the tenth part of the average produce is payable; in that of a field which is 'waste', the eighth part; in that of the field which is ‘half-waste' the sixth part, should be made payable to the land owner by the man who has taken the lease of the land and allowed it to run waste. With reference to a case where a man sows seeds in another man's field, without that man's permission,--Manu says as follows [470] 'If persons, possessing no fields, but having seeds, sow these in fields belonging to others, they never obtain the grain of the crop that is produced :-(9.49).—If the seed, carried away by rain or wind, germinates in a soil.--that seed belongs to the owner of the soil, and the owner of the seed does not receive the produce'—(9.54). And again [471] 'One who sells what is not seed, or picks out the seed, or encroaches upon boundaries * should suffer mutilation -(9.291). PROTECTION OF CROPS Says Yājňavalkya (2.166-167) [472] 'Land should be reserved for Pasture, either according to the wish of the villagers, or according to the land that may be available, or according to the orders of the King.-Between the village-habitations and the cultivated lands, there should be left a belt of uncultivated lands, to the extent of a hundred "bow-lengths" in width; two hundred 'bow-lengths ”round a market-town, † and four hundred " bow-lengths round a city.' The Kharvata' is superior to the village, but inferior to the city. *Bow-lengths-i.e. a measuring rod four cubits in length. * Vedhätithi explains maryādābhedaka' as 'one who transgresses the rules and practices sanctioned by the Scriptures and by usage.- Not seed. -i.e. seed incapable of germinating.–Picks out the seed'- i.e. picks out the sound seeds from the unsound ones, and sells the latter as sound; or it may mean that one picks out, from the fields, the seeds that have been sown by others and takes them away. † The word in the original for this settlement is ‘Kharvata'; it has been defined by Madanaratna as 'a village inhabited by cultivators and artisans' ;-byparārka as a group of households larger than a village and smaller than a city; Mitäksarā and Madhavāchārya describe it as a village abounding in thorny trees? as explained by Bālambhatta. 6 ·102 VIVĀDACHINTĀMANI >> >> or 3 What is meant is that, either according to the wishes of the inhabitants of the village, etc.,-or in accordance with the land that may be available, or according to the orders of the King,-land should be reserved for the grazing of cattle; and the extent of this land shall be 400 cubits in the case of the village, - double that size in the case of a large village, and quadruple that size in the case of the city. And Manu (8.237)- [473] 'Around a village there should be a Pasture-ground, 400" bow-lengths "stick-throws in width; and three times this round a city.' 'Vagara'-i.e. a village which is slightly less than city'. [474] 'If cattle damage the unfenced crops therein, the King, in that case, shall not inflict any punishment on the keepers of the cattle.' 'Sampāta' is 'throw of the stick'. 'Tatra' (in Text 474)-within the said village Pasture-land. Says Vişnu- [475] 'In the case of a field situated on the roadside, or the village or near the land reserved for cattle,-no blame attaches to any one (for cattle-grazing); nor in the case of an unfenced field, if it is for a short time that the cattle has grazed',—this has to be added. \Vhat is meant is that if a field is situated close to the roadside, or to the village, or to the Pasture-land--and it is not fenced, then, in the event of the cow or other cattle grazing on the growing crops for a short time, no blame attaches to the keeper; and blame does attach to him if the grazing continues for a long time; as this indicates the dishonest motive of the keeper; as declared by Yājñavalkya (2.162) [476] 'In the case of a field situated on the roadside, or close to the villages or to the Pasture-land-no blame attaches to any one (for damage done), if it has been done unintentionally; in the event of its being done intentionally, the man responsible for it deserves to be punished like a thief.' * Vivita' is ground left for the roaming about of cattle. Says Manu (8.241) [477] 'In the case of other fields, the cattle-keeper shall be fined a Pana and a quarter. In all such cases, the crop damaged shall be made good to the cultivator;—such is the rule.' Other fields'-i.e. those situated at a distance. Special penalties have been prescribed in reference to special kinds of cattle. Says Shankha-Likhitam [478] 'If a cow grazes the crops at night, her owner shall be fined 5 Māsas; if during the day, 3 Māşas; if for one muhurta (short time), 1 Mäşa; if the field is close to the village, there shall be no punishment.' * A stick should be thrown out with great force; up to the place where it falls it is one 'stick-throw'; from that point it should be thrown again; when this has been done three times, that shall represent the width of the Pasture-land- (Medhātithi). Around the village, & plot of land 100 bow-lengths' in width shall be fenced round by means of pillars; and this plot shall be used as Pasture-land for cattle'- (Arthashāstra 3.10).

·BOUNDARY-DISPUTES 103 The ‘Māşa' meant here should be taken as the Silver one; on account of the following declaration of the Bhäsyäkāram [479] 'In connection with Fines, the Māşa meant is that of Gold; but in connection with cattle-grazing, it is meant to be of silver.' And this 'silver Māşa' contains 2 silver Kronalas; as declared by Manu in the following text- [480] 'Two Kronalas (guñjā-berries) of equal weight constitute the silver Maşa'-(8.135). Grazes the crops at night' in Text No. 478 above) means 'if it grazes to her full satisfaction'; the fine in this case is to be 5 Māşas; while during the day, if she has grazed to her full satisfaction, the fine is to be 3 Māsas only; and if during the day she grazes only for a moment, the fine is to be only 1 Mlāşa;--if she grazes in a field close to the village, then there is to be no punishment.--All this fine is to be imposed upon the owner of the cow; as it cannot be inflicted upon the animal itself. Says Kätyāyana- [481] "The cow should be made to pay the fine of a quarter Pana; the buffalo, two quarters; similarly the fine for goats and sheep and calves, the fine has been declared to be a quarter.' The 'Pana' meant here is the Kārşāpaņa. Gotama [482] 'In the case of the Cow, the fine is to be 5 Māşas; 6, in the case of the Camel; 10, in the case of the Horse and the Buffalo; 2 each in the case of the Goat and the Sheep.' Shankha-Likhita [483] 'In the case of the young ones of all animals, the fine is to be one Māsa'. Says Nārada (11.34) [484] 'When cattle lie down in the field, the fine is to be double; when they remain there, it is to be quadruple; for those who graze the cattle openly, the thief's punishment is what has been prescribed by the wise.' 'Sannānām', 'lying down'-i.e. when they lie down tired after grazing; -vasatām'-grazing and remaining in the field throughout the night; 'graze the cattle openly'-i.e. let the cattle graze there by force, even in the presence of the owner of the field. Nārada again- [485] 'When the crops have been entirely destroyed to the very roots, the owner of the field should receive the produce, the keeper of the cattle should be let off after beating and a fine should be imposed on the owner of the cattle.' Vadha' here stands for beating. Vişnum [486] 'In all cases,-be the cattle accompanied, or not accompanied, by the keeper,—the value of the damaged crops should be paid to the owner (of the field).'

·104 VTVĀDACHINTAMANI That is, when cattle has grazed the crops, the owner of the cattle should be made to pay the value of the damaged crops to the owner of the crops, and also a fine to the King. Says Nārada (11.38) [487] 'When a man claims damages for crops consumed by cows, that quantity of grain should be given to him which has been cons asumed, as estimated by the neighbours.' [488] "The ears of the crops, or the grains, shall be given by the owner of the cows to the cultivator of the field, such is the penalty prescribed for the damaging of crops.' 'Gavatram'-are the ears or sheaves of the crop.-Gomin' is the owner of the cows. He should give, to the owner of the field, either the corn-sheaves, or the grain itself. Though the owner of the crops is entitled to receive this compensation, he should not accept it; as it leads to hell; as declared by Ushanas- [489] 'If a man claims compensation for what has been consumed by cows, his Fathers eat not out of his hands, nor do the denizens of the Heavens.' During the time that the cattle is in charge of the keeper, the fine (for mishaps) is to be inflicted on the keeper; at other times, on the owner. On this point, the law, in brief, is as follows- Vişnu- [490] 'In the case of the cow being without the keeper, the fault lies with the owner; in that of its being accompanied by the keeper, it lies with the keeper.' The exception to this has been laid down by Näradam [491] 'No blame attaches either to the keeper or to the owner of the cattle, -if he (the keeper) has been seized by the King or by a crocodile, or struck by lightning, or bitten by a serpent, or fallen from a tree, or attacked by a tiger or other wild animals, or oppressed by diseases.' And Yājñavalkya-- [492] 'The public breeding bull, the dedicated cattle, the newly-calved cow, the strayed cattle which have no keeper, or those that have been perturbed by the King or by God, these should be set free.' *Mahokşa’ is the breeding bull.-Dedicated'—to some deity.-—Sütikā'- newly-calved.- Āgantukā? —which has come from another village, or strayed away from its herd, and as such has no keeper in charge.--Those that have been stampeded, being frightened by the sight of an army marching, or by the hearing of loud thunder.—If cattle graze a field under these conditions, no blame attaches to any one. This is what is meant by the text. Says Alanu (8.242) [493] 'In the case of cow within ten days of her calving, or of public ills, or of dedicated cattle,whether these be with or without the keeper,- no punishment shall be inflicted; so Manu has declared.' “Public bulls'-breeding bulls. Says Ushanas- [494] 'Elephants and horses are not to be penalised, as they serve to protect the people. Nor are the following to be penalised-one-eyed and lame ·BOUNDARY-DISPUTES 105 6 cattle, the branded bull, the strayed cow, the newly-calved cow, the cow that is in the habit of running away; also cattle taking part in rejoicings or at the time of the performance of a Shraddha.' 'Horses'—those belonging to the King; as these alone serve to protect the people. What has been declared by Gotama (under Text No. 482) regarding the fine being ten Panas in the case of Horse and Buffalo', is meant for the Horse belonging to Traders and others; hence there is no inconsistency between that text and the present one. -Kuntha' is lame; what is really meant by the terms 'one-eyed' and 'lame' is the entirely disabled animal. * Branded Bull -branded with the mark of the Trident and such things.- * Vyabhichāriņā', which is very prone to running away. In the Pārijāta however, the reading adopted is abhisāriņi', which is explained as 'eager to be mated'. Shankham [495] 'Also small animals, and uncontrollable horses, mules and horses.' *Uncontrollable'whose control is impossible.'Ashvatara' is what is known as 'veshavi' (v.l. 'vesharī) [?]. Kätyāyana- [496] 'In the case of cattle of all classes, high, low and middling, -being beaten (by someone),if the owner of the cattle makes a complaint,-- a fine should be imposed' ;- on the man who beat them' this has to be added. An exception to this has been laid down by Brhaspatia [497] 'If cattle trespass into a cultivated field, or a garden, or an enclosed Pasture-land, or a house, or among a herd of cattle,_they should be caught and beaten;- so says Brhaspati.' That is, if cattle trespass into a House and other places, no blame attaches to one who beats them and captures them.

·CHAPTER XI Verbal Assault (Abuse and Defamation) On this subject, says Närada (15.1) [498] 'An offensive statement, couched in violent and foul language, in regard to the native country, caste, family and so forth is called Verbal Assault (Abuse).' 'Akrosha' is violent loudness;—'nyarku' is foulness; the offensive statement that is couched in such violent and foul language is Verbal Assault (Abuse).- This is the general definition of Abuse. This is the opinion of the Mitākşarā also.--All the other explanations of this text are improper; as under none of those explanations could the test constitute a general definition of Abuse. He goes on- (499] 'Abuse again is of three kinds--(c) Harsh, (6) Vulgar, and (c) Virulent; the penalty for these also is in the same order of seriousness.(a) The Harsh Abuse is accompanied by reproach;—(6) the Vulgar Abuse is that couched in indecent words;-) the wise men call that Abuse Virulent which reproaches one with mortal sin.'* *Nyanku-sañjitam-accompanied by words expressive of the private parts. Brhaspati - [500] 'Assault is of two kinds-(a) Abuse and (b) Hurt;each of these is classed under three heads; and the penalty for these also has been declared to be of three kinds. 1501] 'When offensive language is used against a man's country, times (v.l. village,] family and so forth, or an immoral act is attributed to him Without any substance, it is Abuse of the first kind. [502] 'When one uses offensive language in connection with another's mother or sister, or attributes to him a minor sin,-it is called the second kind of Abuse, by people learned in the Scriptures. [503] 'When one charges another with having taken forbidden food or drink, or attributes to him a heinous sin,or exposes his vital vulnerable points, it is Abuse of the worst kind.' Without substance without foundation, hence false;this goes with all the three definitions. Hence what is meant is that the false allegation of an immoral act constitutes the first form,--the false allegation of a minor sin constitutes the second form, -and the false allegation of a heinous sin constitutes the third form, of Abuse. [504] 'When two persons abuse each other, their punishment shall be equal if they are equal in status; if one is superior to the other, the 6 * This same three-fold division is found in Arthashästra (3.18) also.

·VERBAL ASSAULT (ABUSE AND DEFAMATION) 107 punishment of the inferior shall be double, and that of the superior shall be half-Brhaspati 20.5). Yājňavalkya (2.206) (505] 'For abusing an inferior person, one shall be fined half. If one abuses ladies of other families or persons superior to himself,ếhe shall be fined double.' The 'half' shall be in accordance with the gravity of the offence [i.e. the half meant is the half of the fine prescribed for Abuse in general]. The heaviness or lightness of the fine shall depend upon the caste and qualifications of the persons concerned. Kātyāyana and Ushanas-- [506) 'If the reviler offers an apology, saying—“What I said was in ignorance, or through carelessness, or in an exuberance of joy or of love; and I shall never say it again”, -the fine imposed upon him shall be only half of what has been prescribed.' Byhaspati (20.6) [507] 'When persons of equal caste and qualifications abuse each other, the fine, as prescribed in the Scriptures, shall be twelve Panas and a half.' When a minimum amount has been laid down as the fine to be imposed in a case of Abuse, it is to be half of that in the case of Abuse directed against an inferior person; and it shall be double that amount if the Abuse is directed against a superior person.—This is what has been declared by Brhaspati in the above text, which thus means that--for abusing a man of the same caste, the fine shall be 121 Panas;--for abusing a man of inferior caste, it shall be six Panas and one Kākini. So also for abusing one who is oneeyed or lame and so forth. Yājñavalkoya (2.205)- [508] 'If one reproaches another with the words>May you have recourse to your own sister or mother,--he should be made by the King to pay a fine of 25 Panas.' * Says Manu (2.267) [509] ‘For abusing a Brāhmaṇa the Kşattriya should be fined 100; the Vaishya, 150 or 200; the Shūdra should suffer immolation.' 'Adhyardham' is a hundred and fifty.—'Immolation' is Beating.t [510] 'For abusing a Kşattriya, the Brāhmana should be fined 50; for abusing a Vaishya, 25; and for abusing a Shūdra, 12'-(Manu 8.268). The terms 'vaishye' and 'shüdre' are to be construed as—when these are abused'. [511] 'As between the Brāhmaṇa and the Kşattriya, the penalty shall be apportioned by the wise man in the following manner :-For abusing the Brāhmaṇa, the Kşattriya shall be fined the first anercement; and for * Aparārka, Mitākṣarā and others read this text differently as 'Abhigantāsmi bhaginīm mataram vā taveti cha'. † According to Medhätithi-Beating, cutting off of the tongue.-even actual death, to be adjusted in accordance with the nature of the offence.

·108 VIVÄDACHINTĀMA NI abusing the Kşattriya, the Brāhmana shall be fined the middle amercement. Similarly between the Vaishya and the Shüdra'-(Manu 8.276- 277). This refers to cases where the Brāhmaṇa and the Kşattriya have indulged in Abuse alleging degrading sins regarding one another. In connection with the Shūdra, says Brhaspati (20.12) [512] 'If a Shüdra teaches the precepts of religion, or pronounces Vedic texts, or reviles Brāhmaṇas,-he should be punished with the cutting off of his tongue.' Again- [513] 'If a Shüdra insults a twice-born person with gross Abuse, his tongue should be cut off. If he mentions his name or caste with scorn, a burning iron-nail ten inches long shall be thrust into his mouth.--If, through arrogance, he teaches Brāhmanas their duty, the King shall have heated oil poured into his mouth and ears'-(Manu 8.270-272). * Twice-born person-belonging to any of the three castes.-'Gross'-i.e. alleging mortal sins, says Kalpataru. With reference to twice-born persons, says Gotama (12.1) [614] 'If a Shüdra reviles twice-born persons, or hurts them by striking, his offending limb should be cut off.' So that, for abusing, the tongue is to be cut off; for hurting the body, the striking limb shall be cut off; that is, that limb should be cut off by which he struck the man. He goes on (12.4-6) [615] 'If he listens to the recitation of the Veda, his ears shall be filled with molten lead; if he recites the Veda, his tongue shall be cut out; if he carries the Veda in memory, his body shall be split up.' Says Manu (8.273) [516] 'If a man misrepresents the learning, habitat, caste, occupation, or bodily defects of another person, he should be made to pay a fine of 200.' This refers to also those cases where the offender is not a Shudra. The 'misrepresenting' may be in the following words :-you have not learnt anything? - you are not an inhabitant of Aryāvarta'-'you have not performed any penances - you are suffering from skin diseases’;--whoever does this sort of misrepresenting should be punished. Says Vyāsa [517] 'For defaming a man by attributing to him a vague offence, one should suffer the first amercement; by attributing to him a definite "minor offence”, he should suffer the middle amercement; and by attributing to heinous offence”, he should suffer the highest amercement.' The 'first, middle and highest amercements' are to be taken respectively with the three kinds of defamers; who are to be fined accordingly. Says Nārada (15.30) [518] "If a man reviles the King who is firm in the discharge of his duties, he becomes absolved from the sin by the cutting off of his tongue and by the confiscation of his entire property." him a ·VERBAL ASSAULT (ABUSE AND DEFAMATION) 109 And Yājñavalkya (2.301) [519] 'If a man says what is disagreeable to the Kings -or defames him, or divulges his secrets,-he shall be banished after his tongue has been cut off.' Ushanas- [520] 'In cases where no penalty has been specifically prescribed by the high-souled ones, due punishment shall be inflicted after thorough consideration of the offence,' This has been explained by me in detail in the Nītichintamani.

·CHAPTER XII Assault and Hurt On this subject, says Brhaspati- [521] 'Throwing of ashes, etc. and striking with the hand, etc. constitute an Assault of the First Degree; for which a fine of one Mäşa is to be inflicted. - This is the penalty that has been prescribed for cases where the parties concerned are of equal status.--If the Assault has been made against the wife of another man, the fine shall be double of the former; and if it has been against a person of superior status, the fine shall be treble of it.' v The 'striking' meant here is only the raising of hands in a threatening attitude.--"Of equal status'-as regards caste and other qualifications.- 'Māşika' here stands for a silver-piece weighing one Mäşa. With reference to touching, says Yājñavalkya (2.213-214)- [522] 'Between persons of equal status,-(a) for the throwing of ashes, mud or dust, the fine shall be 10 Panas; (b) for defiling with unclean things, phlegm and the like, or touching with the heel, the fine shall be 20 Panas.-If the person assaulted is another man's wife, the fine shall be double; so also when one who is assaulted is a superior person. -If the person assaulted is of inferior status, the fine shall be half.- If the insulting has been due to such causes as stupidity or intoxication and the like, no punishment shall be inflicted.' 'Amedhya', 'unclean things like tears.--Pārsni' is the back of the foot, heel.-Nisthyüta'—the phlegm spat out of the mouth.--Moha', 'stupidity--want of knowledge.—Mada', 'intoxication due to wine and such things; the phrase "and the like' includes insanity and so forth. Says Kätyāyana [523] 'If a man touches another man on his lower limbs, with vomit, urine, excreta or such other unclean things,--he shall be fined the quadruple; if on the middle parts of the body, the sextuple, and if on the head, the octuple.' If one touches a person of equal status with vomit and other things on the lower part of his body, he shall be fined the 'quadruple of ten Paņas (prescribed under 522 above); similarly for throwing it on the middle and other parts of the body, it is to be 'sextuple' (six times 10 Panas) and so forth. Yājñavalkya (2.217) [524] 'For pulling one by his feet, hair, clothes or hands, the fine shall be 10 Panas; for trampling upon one after having bound, pressed and dragged him, the fine shall be 100.' That is, if a man of equal status is dragged by his feet, hair or clothes, the offender shall be fined 10 Panas;—while if the same man is trampled ·ASSAULT AND HURT 111 upon with the feet, after having been tied up with strips of cloth and dragged up, the fine shall be 100 Panas. Kätyāyanam [525] 'For raising the hand against another, the fine imposed should be 12 Panas; for actually striking with the hand, it shall be double. This is the rule among twice-born men.' This is applicable to cases where both parties are of equal status.* Brhaspati- [526] ‘When one person raises gravels, stones, or wood-pieces against another, he shall be fined the first amercement; when they mutually strike one another with hands, each of them shall be fined 10 Panas; if with feet, 20 Panas.' For both, it is 10 Paņas, when striking with hands, and 20 when striking with feet; it is 12 when striking with wood-piece and other things. This also applies to cases where both parties are of equal status. Says Vişnu (5.60-65) [527] 'If a man raises his hand against another, he shall be fined 10 Kārsāpaņas; if he raises his foot, 20; if he raises a wood-piece, he shall suffer the first anercement; if he raises a weapon, the highest amercement.--If an inferior person raises a weapon against his superior, he shall be fined 1,000 Panas.' And Yājñavalkya (2.216) [528] 'If men raise hands against one another, they will be fined 10 Panas; if the feet, 20 Paņas; if a weapon, they shall suffer the middle amercement. This applies to all men.' That is, when between two Brāhmaṇas a weapon is raised against one another, each of them is to be fined 500 Panas. Says Manu (8.280–283) [529] 'If he raises his hand or a stick against one, he deserves to have his hand cut off; if he sti him with his foot, in anger, he has to have his foot cut off. [530] 'If a low-born man wishes to sit upon the same seat with a highborn one, he should be branded on the hip and banished; or the King shall have his buttocks cut off. . [531] 'If he spits at the superior, the King should have his lips cut off; if he urinates at him, his penis shall be cut off ; if he breaks wind against him, his anus shall be cut off. [532] 'If he catches him by the hair, his hands shall be cut off, without hesitation; also if he lays hold of his legs, beard, neck or the scrotum.' All these penalties are for the Shüdra as against the Brāhmaṇa. The meaning is that if the Shūdra insults the Brāhmana by throwing upon him the phlegm from his mouth, urine and wind from his anus,--he shall suffer the penalty of having his lips and other limbs cut off respectively. * Some digests read 'sajātişu' for ' dvijātişu'.

·112 VIVĀDACHINTĀMANI Says Brhaspati (21.6-7) [533] 'When two persons in anger turn their weapons against one another, the middle amercement shall be inflicted upon both; if a wound is inflicted, the punishment shall be determined by experts, in accordance with the severity of the hurt. [534] 'For striking a man with bricks, stones or sticks, the fine shall be 2 Mäşas; if blood flows, the fine shall be doubled by the wise.' In connection with the actual use of weapons, says Vişnu (5.66-67)- [535] 'If a hurt is inflicted without fetching blood, the fine shall be 30 Panas *; if blood is fetched, 64 Paņas.' In regard to a case where a serious wound has been inflicted by a weapon, says Manu (8.284) (536] 'One who bruises the skin should be fined 100; as also one who fetches blood; one who tears the flesh, should be fined 6 Nişkas; and the bonebreaker shall be banished.' † A nişka is equal to four 'Suvarnas'. Brhaspati (21.8) [537] 'For bruising the skin, the lowest amercement; for tearing the flesh, the middle amercoment; for breaking a bone, the highest amercement; and for killing, the capital punishment.' 'Pramăpana' is Death. [538] "For breaking of the ear, nose or hand, for injuring the teeth and the feet, the middle amercement shall be inflicted; the double of this when any one of these is entirely cut off." 'Patiteşu'—when the ear and the rest are entirely cut off from their place. Says Kätyāyana- [539] 'For cutting off the ear, lip, nose, eyes, tongue, penis or hand, the punishment shall be the highest amercement; the middle amercement if any of these is only torn;-so says Bhrgu.' 'Chhedana', 'cutting-entirely removing from its place; while bhedana' is tearing. Yajňavalkya (2.219) [540] 'For breaking the hand, feet or the teeth, and for tearing the ear or the nose,the punishment is the middle amercement; also for breaking a healing wound, and for beating a man till he is nearly dead.' * The reading everywhere, also in Vivādaratnākara (p. 264), is 30; but the original in Vişnu-smrti has 32; which is what the sense requires. + This pertains to offences committed among twice-born men themselves, and also between two Shūdras.—'Banishment' is an alternative to 'Death'; hence there shall be 'Banishment for the Brāhmana and 'Death' for the others- (Medhätithi). A Hundred is the fine for inflicting a wound more serious than the one contemplated by Vişnu's text (No. 535 above)-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 264).

·ASSAULT AND HURT 113 6 & Chhedana' is tearing.-- Vranodbhēda'--freshly opening a wound that had healed up. Similarly for beating a man in such a way as to render him as good as dead.-In each of these cases, the fine is 500 Panas. Vişnu (5.70–72)- [541] ‘For breaking the eye, neck, arm, or ankle,--the highest amercement. If one has broken both the eyes of a person, the King shall never let him go out of the prison; he may make him similar to that person.' Sakthi' is the place where the end of the leg meets the foot. Similar -i.e. just like what he made the other man. Yājñavalkya (2.303) [542] 'One who hurts both eyes of a man, one who follows the orders of the King's enemy, a Shūdra who adopts the living of the Brāhmana,- for all these the fine shall be 800.' This is the penalty for(a) one who inflicts such hurt on the two yes as causes a little pain and is curable;(6) one who carries out the orders of the King's enemies, for the destruction of the King; and (c) the Shüdra who wears the marks of the Brāhmana-such as the wearing of the Sacred Thread and the like, and makes a living thereby. When we find several penalties laid down for one and the same offence, it should be explained on the basis of the greater or less amount of pain caused by the hurt inflicted. As says Manu (8.286) [543] 'When a hurt has been inflicted on men with the motive of causing pain,--the King shall inflict punishment in accordance with the degree of pain suffered.' 'Duḥkhāya'-i.e. with the motive of causing pain. What is thus meant is that if the hurt has been caused by inadvertence, there shall be no punishment. Says Nāradan [544] 'By whatever limb a man of a lower caste offends against a Brāhmaṇa, that limb shall be cut off; thus alone would he be cleansed of the sin.' * Närada again [545] 'If a man strikes a King, even though the latter may have wronged him, he shall be fastened to a stake and roasted; as he has committed a sin more heinous than a hundred Brāhmana-slaughters.' That is, even when the King has done some wrong, if anyone strikes him, he should be tied to a stake and roasted in fire. This must be taken as applicable to offenders who are not Brāhmanas; because of the following specific prohibition- [546] 'One should never put the Brāhmaṇa to death, even though he may have committed all the sins'-(Manu 8.380). Says Manu (8.279-280) [547] 'With whatever limb a low-born man hurts a superior person, every such limb shall be cut off; such is the teaching of Manu. ** By whatever limb & Shüdra strikes a Brähmaņa, that limb shall be cut off. If he only raises his hand against him, then a fine and compensation. If he only touches him, the fine shall be halved !-(Arthashāstra 3.19). 8 ·114 VIVĀDACHINTĀMANI . [148] 'If he raises his hand or stick against him, his hand should be cut off; if he strikes him in anger with his foot, his foot shall be cut off.' [See Text 529 above.] 'Superior person-i.e. one belonging to one of the three higher castes. 'Low-born man'-Shūdra. Again [549] 'If a low-born person wishes to sit upon the same seat with a high. born one, he should be branded on the hip and banished; or the King shall have his buttocks cut off '-(Manu 8.281). [See Text 530 above.] * Branded with iron.—'Sphicham'-a part of the buttocks. Again [550] 'If he spits at his superior, the King should have his lips cut off; if he urinates at him, his penis shall be cut off; if he breaks wind against him, his anus shall be cut off '-(Manu 8.282). [See 531 above.] [561] 'If he catches him by the hair, his hands shall be cut off, without hesitation; also if he lays hold of his legs, beard, neck or the scrotum '-(Manu 8.283). [See 532 above.] That is to say-If the Shūdra, through arrogance, spits at a person belonging to one of the three higher castes, his lips shall be cut off; if he urinates, his penis shall be cut off; and if he passes wind against him, his anus shall be cut off; and if he catches hold of his hair or feet or beard or neck or scrotum, his hands shall be cut off. With reference to the Shüdra, says Āpastambam [562] 'On his seeking to equal his superior in the matter of speaking, walking, bed and seat,--he should be beaten with a stick.' 'In speaking'-i.e. speaking at the same time ;-'walking-going as if he were equal to him;-'bed and seat'-sitting along with him. Katyāyana [553] 'The penalty laid down in the matter of Abuse and Defamation among persons of higher and lower castes shall be inflicted in the same order in the case of Assault and Hurt also.' Brhaspati- [554] 'When a limb has been injured or broken or cut off, the assailant shall be made to pay the expenses incurred in the recovery, and also to restore whatever he might have taken away in the quarrel.' 'Samutthānavyaya'-expense incurred in recovering from the hurt. Yājñavaliya (2.221) [556] 'If several men assault a single man, the punishment of each of the assailants shall be double of that which has been ordained (for a single assailant); and each of them shall restore to the assailed person whatever he may have taken away from him during the quarrel, and also pay to the King a fine double the value of the article taken.' The 'punishment is doublo'; and whatever each of them has taken away in the quarrel.* * Fine.this is the punishment for taking away the man's property by force says Mitäkşara. 8B ·ASSAULT AND HURT 115 Manu (8.229-30) [556] 'The Wife, the Son, the Slave, the Servant and the Uterine Brother may be chastised with rope or bamboo-bark, when they have committed a fault;- but only on the back part of the body, and never on the upper part of the body; one who strikes otherwise than this incurs the sin of a thief.' 6 Yama- [557] 'One who behaves otherwise than this deserves the prescribed punishment.' With reference to the Pupil, says Āpastambam [558] "If he commits a fault, he should be reprimanded; if it is necessary to inspire fear in his mind, he should be subjected to fasting and watersprinkling; punishments, when inflicted, should be in consonance with his capacity to bear it; and that too only till the offence ceases.' Reprimand'-harsh words.-Atitrāsa'--for inspiring fear in his mind. 'Water-sprinkling'--pouring water over him;--this is to be done during the winter. -Yathămätram'-in accordance with the pupil's capacity.-- nivíttēḥ-i.e. till the cessation of the offence. Nārada- [559] 'The Father shall not suffer punishment for an offence committed by his Son; nor is the owner of a dog or a monkey to be punished for any injury inflicted by these, -unless he should have set them to do it.' Yājňavalkya (2.290) [560] 'If the owner of tusked or horned animals does not save the person attacked, ,-even when he is able to save him,- he should suffer the first amercement; and double that amount, if he refuses to help when called for.' If the owner of the dog or other animals,- oven when able to do so, does not save the person attacked by them,--then he should suffer the first amercement; even when requested to remove his dog, if he does not come to the rescue, then he should suffer the middle amercement. Says Katyāyana, [561] 'In a case where there is no motive or reason indicative of the hurt, the King shall, in the absence of witnesses, have recourse to ordeal.' That is, when there are no witnesses, recourse should be had to ordeal. Nārada- [562] 'He who is the first aggressor is decidedly guilty; he who retaliates is also an offender; but the former shall suffer a heavier punishment.' 'First aggressor-who utters the Abuse first. Katyayāna- [563] 'When a man strikes another with a dangerous weapon, he shall be regarded as guilty and liable to punishment; even though he may have been the first to be attacked.'

·116 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI 'Dungerous weapon'-e.g. the Sword. Brhaspati (564] 'One who, on being abrused, returns the Abuse, mor, on being struck, returns the blow,—or one who strikes an assassin attacking him,- commits no wrong.' [665] 'When a low-born person abuses a superior person,--the latter should not be prosecuted if he has struck the former.' 'Low-born person'-the Shūdra ;--'superior person'--the Brāhmaṇa and others. That same Brāhmaṇa, if he strikes that Shüdra;-the Genitive ending (in 'tasya' is in connection with himsă', 'striking');-he shall not be prosecuted'--punished. Närada (15.11-12) (566) -A Shvapāka, a Eunuch, a Chandāla, one who makes a living by prostitution, one who lives by killing, the elephant-keeper, an Apostate, a slave, or one who has disregarded his teacher and preceptor,-if any of these commit an offence, immediate beating should be the only punishment; and the wise men have declared that there is nothing wrong in beating or hurting these persons. If these men should insult a superior person, the King shall hand them over to that person, who will punish them; and the King is not responsible for punishing them. These men are the 'refuse of humanity; hence their wealth also partakes of the nature of 'refuse' (filth); hence these shall be beaten, and never punished with a fine.' 6 4 The girl born of a Kşattriya father from a Shūdra mother is called Ugrā';~the girl born of a Shūdra father and Kşattriya mother is called 'Ksattā' ;-one born from the Kşatty father from an Ugra mother is the Shvapāka'.—Panda' is the eunuch, who is sexless.—Chandāla' in this context stands for one born of a Brāhmaṇa mother and Shüdra father. 'One who lives by killing',-i.e. the fowler, the fisherman and the like.- 'Elephant-keeper'-who drives elephants. Apostate' is well-known.-Dāsa' here is the Slave.-'Ghāta' meant here is Beating; and this shall be in accordance with the character of the offence. Kātyāyana [567] 'For the untouchable, the rogue, the slave, the Mlechchha, the worst sinners, and those born of the inverse mixture of castes, the punishment shall be always corporeal, never monetary.' Worst sinners'those who have committed very heinous sins.-'Born of the inverse mixture of castes '—such as the Nişāda and the like. Says Visnu (5.48 et seq.) [568] 'One who kills a goat, a horse or a camel, should have one hand and one foot lopped off; one who sells bad meat, or kills a domestic animal, should be fined 100 Kārşāpanas,-and he should pay the price of the animal to its owner; one who deprives animals of their masculinity and also one who has killed a wild animal, shall be fined 50 Panas;--one who kills birds and fishes, 10 Kārşāpaņas.' This last penalty is for those who do not make their living by killing birds and fishes.-'Bad meat'-such meat as cannot and should not be eaten (such as the flesh of the dog or the jackal).

·ASSAULT AND HURT 117 .. Says Manu (2.285)- [569] 'In the case of all kinds of trees, the punishment inflicted for injuring them shall be in accordance with their usefulness.' And Yajňavalkya (2.227-229) [570] 'In the case of trees with offshoots, and of protective trees, one who cuts off their branch is to be fined 20 Panas; one who cuts the subsidiary trunks, 40 Panas; and one who cuts the entire tree, 80 Paņas. [571] 'In the case of trees growing on the boundaries of sacred mounds and cremation-grounds, or on a sacred spnt, or in a temple,--the fine shall be double (the aforesaid); also for cutting a famous tree.' [572] 'In the case of a thicket, a clump, a bush, a creeper, a low-spreading plant, a medicinal herb, or a high-spreading creeper, growing on the above-mentioned spots,--if a man cuts them, the fine shall be half of that mentioned before.' 'Trees with offshoots'-e.g. the Banyan tree ;-protective trees '—the Pipal and the like;'cuts the entire tree'--from its very roots.Thus then, for the cutting of the branch of these trees, the fine shall be 20 Panas; for the cutting of their subsidiary trunks, 40 Panas; and for the cutting of them from the very roots, 80 Paņas. Under ordinary circumstances, in the case of the thicket and the rest however, the fine shall consist of 10 Panas, but it becomes double, if the thicket, etc. that are cut have been growing in the places mentioned.-Kșupa' is a bush with small branches, such as the Shiphā, the Shākhoța and the like. In continuation of the word 'should be punished', says Vişnu (5.55–59). [573] "The feller of a fruit-yielding tree shall suffer the highest amercement; the feller of a flower-yielding tree shall suffer the middle amercement; one who cuts creepers, shrubs or climbing plants shall be fined 100 Kārşāpanas; one who cuts grass shall be fined one Kārşāpana. All these shall make good to the owner the income that they were vielding.' The word 'shall pay lias to be supplied.

·CHAPTER XIII Theft and Robbery On this subject says Manu [574] 'Having truly proclaimed their crimes, in connection with their respective acts, the King shall duly inflict punishment on them, in accordance with the values and capacities.' "Tēşām', from the context, should be taken as standing for thieves.- What is meant is that the King should inflict punishments in accordance with the value of the property stolen. Brhaspati (22.6) [575] 'Thieves,--having been traced by the King's officers, through their association or through indicatives or through the possession of stolen goods- shall be compelled to restore the plunder and shall be punished with punishments prescribed by the Law.' 'Association' --with well-known thieves ;-'Indicatives of the thieving profession, such as the implements for breaking holes in walls and so forth; Stolen goods'--the things stolen;--through any one of these means, having decided that the man concerned is a thief,—the King should compel him to restore the stolen property to its owner, and then proceed to chastise him with such punishment as have been prescribed in the Scriptures. Says Manu (8.302) [576] 'The King shall try his best to suppress thieves; by the suppression of thieves is fame and kingdom become augmented.' [577] 'The King who offers safety to his people is always honoured; ever prosperous is his sacrifice wherein he offers the fee of fearlessness? (Manu 8.303). [578] 'If a King does not repress thieves and yet receives taxes, his kingdom becomes perturbed and he falls off from heaven'-(Manu 9.254). 'Parihīyatē' is to be construed with 'sa' (he') to be supplied. Thieves are of two kinds--'open' and 'secret'. Among 'open' thieves are tradesmen and others; and among 'secret' thieves are those who break into houses through holes made in the walls. In regard to the former (i.e. the 'open' thieves, tradesmen, etc.) says Vyāsa- [579] 'Traders rob people by tampering with weights and measures, and with accounts and countings, and also by reducing and enhancing the price of commodities; they adulterate superior with inferior goods looking like them; and other cheats even change the commodities (shown and actually sold). Yājñavalkya (2.244)- [580] 'If a trader, through false measures or scales, abstract the eighth part of the commodity, he should be fined 200 Panas; the fine to be increased or decreased according as the part extracted is higher or lower.'

·THEFT AND ROBBERY 119 The particle 'or implies absence of restriction; hence the meaning is that by whatever trickery, in the shape of false scales and the like, the trader abstracts the eighth part of the commodity that belongs to another person, -he should be made to pay a fine of 200;- if he abstracts the ninth part, then the fine shall be 200 less by the eighth part of 200,-if he abstracts the seventh part, the fine shall be 200 plus the eighth part of 200.* Kätyāyana- [581] 'A dealer who deals with false scales and weights and measures and counterfeits, or by other secret means of fraud,-he should suffer the first amercement.' 'Pratīmāna'-known as 'parimāna', measures.—The trader dealing with these should be made to pay a fine of 250. This is meant for cases where what has been abstracted by fraud is the sixth part or more t; hence, it is not inconsistent with Yajñavalkya's milo (Text 580). Manu (9.287)– [582] 'The man who treats equals as unequals in value should suffer the penalty of the first or the middle amercement.' That is, when a man receives 'unequal' things~i.e. things of superior quality--in place of 'equal' things—i.e. things of common quality, either in exchange or in value,he is to be fined 250 Paņas, if the difference is equal to the sixth part,-and 500 Panas, if the difference is equal to the fifth part or more.I Again- [583] 'If one sells what is not seedor picks out the seed,- or transgresses the bounds of propriety, he shall suffer mutilation as the penalty -Manu 9.291). That ism(a) one who sells what is not-seed, as seed, or (6) one who takes away by force the field sown by another man,or (c) one who transgresses the custom of the country, or caste, or family, or the commands of the Scriptures or of the King,--he deserves to have his ears and other limbs cut off. * Abstracts either while selling or while buying-says Aparārka. † The printed text is corrupt. The right reading is supplied by M&Etachcha şcaşthamshakachchhadmakaranapaksē'. $ In regard to certain substances, it has been ordained that in exchanges, they shall be treated as equal; e.g. Sesamum and Paddy ;---if then, having advanced a certain quantity of Sesamum, a man demands and receives a larger quantity of Paddy, or when, in the act of buying and selling, a man buys Sesamum at a price lower than that paid for Paddy; or in a case where one man has an upper garment and another man has the lower garment, and both are of equal value,--and yet, knowing the greater need of the former, the latter offers to him the lower garment, not in equal exchange, but at a higher price ;-the punishment in all these cases will be as above; to be inflicted on the Buyer as well as the Seller.The exact amount of the fine to be imposed shall be determined by the value of the commodity concerned.(Medhätithi). According to Vivādaratnākara (p. 286), the meaning is somewhat different- If a man is found to receive the same price from & number of persons, but the commodity sold to them is not of the same quality-he is to be fined the lowest ainercement.--Or the meaning may be that the fine is to be inflicted if he charges il price higher than what is due. It quotes Halāyudha, whose explanation is the same as Medhätithi's, but adds also the fine is to be imposed if the Seller charges a higher price on finding that the Buyer is in great need of the commodity'. $ ' Picks out the seed'-before selling the man picks out all the sound seeds and palms off only the unsound ones; or it may mean 'one who picks out the seeds germinating in another's field, with a view to damage -(Medhātithi).

·120 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Brhaspati [584] 'A trader who sells an article after hiding its defects-or having adulterated it, or an old article after repairing it, --shall be compelled to give the double quantity to the buyer and to pay a fine equal in amount to the price of the article sold.' A thing whose defects have been concealed, -or a commodity adulterated with an inferior commodity, or an article which has been repaired and renewed by means of rubbing and scrubbing, etc.-one who sells such things shall be made to give to the buyer double the quantity of the commodity sold to him, and also a fine to the King, equal to the price of the thing bought. Yājñavalkya (2.245)- [585] 'Medicines, Oils, Salts, Scents, Grains, Molasses and the like,-for adulterating any of these things with inferior stuff, the fine is 16 Panas.' That is, when one sells to a man, any of the things mentioned here after mixing it with other things,-he shall be fined 16 Panas. The rule laid down by Byhaspati (Text 584) applies to things of high value, while the one laid down here by Yajñavalkya applies to things of small value. Hence there is no inconsistency between the two. [586] 'If a trader makes a false declaration regarding quantities, or evades the Custom-house-or buys and sells fraudulently, he should be made to pay eight times the value '-(Attributed to Yājñavalkya in Vivādaratnākara, p. 298). That is, if one falsely declares the quantity of the commodity, or if when going to sell things, he avoids the Market-place or if he huys or sells things fraudulently, he should be made to pay eight times the value of the commodity concerned. Vişnu [587] 'One who evades the Custom-house should suffer the confiscation of his entire stock.' That is, when the man is going to sell and buy things, if he evades the regular market-place, he should be made to surrender his entire stock.--This refers to cases of repeated offence, while that laid down by Yājñavalkya (Text 586) refers to the first offence; hence there is no inconsistency between the two. Shankha [588] 'For using false scales, weights and measures, corporeal punishment, or the cutting off of limbs.' Maryādābhedakah' explained and translated as 'one who transgressos custom, etc. etc.' may stand for one who breaks dikes and dams'. 'Bijotkrastā -No two commentators seem to agree regarding the exact signification of this term. Vivādachintamani has explained it as 'one who takes forcible possession of another man's field'.-Medhātithi as 'one who picks out the good seeds and palms off the bad ones or one who damages another man's sowing by picking out the seeds germinating in his fields ':-Vivādaratnākara (p. 296) as ‘one who takes away, by force, the seed sown in another man's field'. * Vivādaratnākara (p. 297) offers a different explanation :--The penalty here prescribed is for the more adulterating, even though the man may have not actually sold it (such is the view of the Mitākşarā also) ;-the preceding rule (of Kätyāyana) has prescribed the penalty for actually selling the adulterated stuff; hence there is no inconsistency between the two.

·THEFT AND ROBBERY 121 That is, one who makes use of false scales and weights, or of false measures, his head shall be shaved off; one who does so habitually, should have either his ear or some other limb cut off. Others hold that the actual infliction of the one or the other penalty shall be determined by the high or low value of the transaction involved. Yājſavalkya (2.240) [589] 'One who makes false weighing scales or weights and measures, one who forges royal edicts,--he who makes false coins,—and also one who makes use of these, should suffer the highest amercement.' That is, one who makes false scales, etc., or forges royal edicts, or makes counterfeit coins of copper and other metals,--or one who makes lise of these things shall be made to pay a fine of 1,000 Paņas. Again [590] 'If a professional coin-tester declares a true coin to be false, or a false coin to be true,--he should be made to pay the highest amercement (Yājñavalkya 2.241). 'Nanaka' is coin. If a coin-tester, through dishonesty, declares a pure coin to be counterfeit, or a counterfeit coin to be pure--he should be fined 1,000 Paņas. In continuation of the term 'highest amercement', says Vişnu-- [691] 'Also one who sells counterfeits.' Counterfeitssuch as false (artificial) pearls and such things. Yājñavalkya (2.249) [592] 'If traders combine (a) to maintain a price prejudicial to the interests of artisans and artists, or (b) to bring about a rise or fall in the prices (fixed by the King),--they should be fined 1,000 Panas.' "Kāru', 'artisan', is the man who makes images; 'Shilpi', 'artist', is the painter of pictures. If people combine to bring about a price of things that is very prejudicial to the interests of artisans and artists,-or if they combine to lower or enhance the price of things fixed by the King,--they shall be fined 1,000 Panas. Again- [593] "Those traders who combine to hamper the sale of commodities brought in by (foreign) traders, by selling up things at an unauthorised priceand also those who sell things at unauthorised prices-should suffer the highest anercement :-(Yajñavalkya 2.250). That is, those traders who, by means of tricks, buy up valuable things at a low price, and those who sell cheap things at high prices, should be punished 1,000 Panas. Manu (8.399) -- [594] 'A trader who, through greed, exports such goods as have been proclaimed to be the monopoly of the State, or have been forbidden, shall have all his property confiscated.' That is to say, there are certain things, like elephants and horses, which are fit for the King, or whose sale and purchase have been forbidden, if any one, evading this order of the King, should sell such things, the King shall take away all the money that he has made by the said sale.* 6 * The punishment is meant for one who does the exporting with a view to profiteering; if the articles are being carried for being presented to a foreign King, the punishment shall be severer-Medhātithi).

·122 VIVÄDACHINTĀMANI Manu (8.398) (595) "The King shall take one-twentieth part of the price of saleable commodities, as fixed by men who have experience of Custom-houses and are experts in all kinds of merchandise.' * Vişnu- [596] 'Out of the proceeds of commodities of his own lands, the King shall take the tenth part as Customs Duty; and the twentieth part on those of commodities imported from foreign lands.' When a trader buys and also sells things within the kingdom,-out of the profit that he has made, the King shall take the tenth part; and when he buys in foreign lands and sells in his own kingdom,-out of the profit made, the King shall take the twentieth part.Such is the meaning of the two sentences. Gotama [597] 'On all merchandise, the twentieth part is the Duty; on roots, flowers, medicines, honey, meat, grass and fuel, it is the sixth part.' That is, when the seven articles-roots and the rest are imported from other lands and sold in one's own country--the King should take the sixth part of the profit. Vashiştha- [598) 'In regard to the Customs Duty, they quote the following verse- There is no Duty on articles whose value is less than a Pana; nor on profits made by an Artist; nor on young ones; nor on an Ambassador; nor what has been obtained in alms; nor on the remnants of things stolen; nor from the Vedic Scholar or from the Renunciato; nor on Sacrifice.' 'Bhinna'-less; hence the meaning is that there is no Duty leviable by the King on any commodity that is worth less than a Paņa. Similarly there is no Duty to be levied on what has been obtained by a work of art, or on the price of the calf and such young animals; or on what has been obtained through ambassadorship;-or on the remnant of a commodity that has been taken away by thieves ;-nor on an article sold by the Vedic Scholar or the Renunciate; nor on what has been got for the purposes of a sacrificial performance. Vişnu [599] 'A physician dealing dishonestly towards persons of high classes, should be fined the highest amercement; towards persons of the middleclass, the middle amercement, and towards animals, the lowest amerce. ment.'t * 'Forbidden'-specially valuable products of the country, which are not allowed to go out-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 300). According to Vivādaratnākara (p. 304), this refers to merchandise bought from foreign lands. † The physician knows a case to be hopeless, and yet, without communicating this fact to the patient, undertakes his treatment, and the patient dies; in this case the physician should be fined 250 Panas.-If the death has been due to some act of the physician himself, the fine shall be 500 Paņas.-If he commits a mistake in operating upon a vital part of the body, he shall be convicted under the appropriate section of 'Hurt'-(Arthashästra 4.1).

·THEFT AND ROBBERY 123 Vyāsa [600] 'Prostitutes, Cheats and Artists place an unwilling and inexperienced person in a difficult position, and extract money from him.' "Inexperienced '-not knowing what is right or wrong. What is meant is that these persons are confidence-tricksters (and punishable as below). Brhaspati (22.10) [601] "Judges delivering wrong judgments, those who live by bribes, and confidence-tricksters,--all these should be banished.' Yajñavalkya [602] 'Those who live by bribes,—the King shall deprive of all their property and banish.' Again [603] 'The washerman who wears the clothes belonging to other persons shall pay a fine of 3 Panas; if he sells or hires out or pledges them, or lends them for vise, the fine shall be 10 Paņas - Yajñazalkya 2.238). * Arakraya' is Hiring.-'Ādhana' is Pledging. Byhaspati (22.12) [604) 'Those who dishonestly show themselves as wearing a Staff and such other emblems (of religion)- and cause injury to men by deceiving them, -shall be corporeally punished by the King's officers.' Manu (9.292) — [605] 'If the goldsmith, the worst of criminals, acts dishonestly,--the King shall have him cut to pieces with razors.' 'Kantaka', 'criminal',-here stands for the open thief.--'Pravartamāna'- the Present (Participle) indicates Habit; hence what is meant, according to some people, is that the said penalty is to be inflicted only when the offence has been repeated.* Yājñavalkya (2.296) [606] 'One who deals fraudulently with gold, -one who sells improper meat, -shall have their three limbs cut off, and made to pay the highest amercement,' That is, (a) one who, by means of herbs, etc. treats baser metals in such a way as to make them look like gold, and then carries on purchase and other dealings through them; and (8) one who sells dog's flesh as deer's and so forth;-both these are to be fined 1.000 Panas and then be deprived of their nose, teeth and hands. Again- [607] 'If one makes a thing which is of inferior quality to appear like one of superior quality,his punishment should be eight times the price obtained by the sale -(Yajňavalkya 2.246). * Considerations of quantity stolen, or caste of the owner, do not enter into this case; repetition alone has to be taken into consideration;--in the case of the first offence, a fine shall be substituted for the slicing of the flesh-(Medhātithi).

·124 VIVÄDACHINTĀMAŅI If a man, by a clever trick, makes a less valuable article look like a more valuable one and palms it off as such on a purchaser,-he should be made to pay eight times the amount of the difference between the price obtained by him and the real price of the article. [608] 'If a man pledges or sells either a covered article after having altered it, or an ordinary commodity after having artificially made it appear as a valuable article,-he shall be punished as follows:--If the value of the article pledged or sold is less than a Pana, there shall be a fine of 50 Paras; if it is full one Pana, the fine shall be 100 Panas; if it is two Paņas the fine shall be 200 Paņas; the amount of the fine being increased in proportion to the price of the article concerned '--(Yajňavalkya 2.247-248). 'Samudga'--casket, cover.- Sārabhānda'-valuable commodity, like musk. Thus wliat meant is that by making an empty casket appear as full, 1,-or by making an artificial thing appear as the real thing,--and then pledging or selling it, one becomes subject to the following penalty. The penalty is described in the next sentence: -Bhinna' is less; i.e. less than a Pana; so that if the article whose value is less than 1 Pana is represented as existent when it is not there, and then pledged or sold, - similarly when artificial and unreal musk or some such thing worth less than a Pana is represented as real, and then pledged or sold as such, the fine shall be 50 Panas. When the article is worth i Pana, the fine shall be 100 Panas; when it is worth 2 Panas, the fine shall be 200 Panas; so on and so on the fine shall be 100 times the price of the article concerned. * Byhaspati (22.13-14) [6091 'Those who artificially make articles of small value to appear as of higher value, and cheat women and children, shall be fined in proportion to the price obtained.' [610] 'Those who make and sell false gold or fictitious pearls and corals shall be compelled to restore the price to the purchaser, and to pay double the amount as fine to the King.' Yājňavalkya (2.178)— [611] 'In fire, gold remains unconsumed; silver loses 2 per cent in weight; zinc and lead lose 6 per cent; copper, 5 per cent; and iron, 10 per cent.' 'Gold' i.e. pure gold; gold other than pure is liable to be consumed; hence if the gold is pure, it does not lose in weight even if it is kept in burning fire during the whole day and night. In the case of 100 Palas of silver, 2 Palas become consumed. Similarly if there are 100 Palas of pure lead or zinc, the loss is 8 Palas; in 100 Palas of copper, it is 5 Palas; in 100 Palas of iron, it is 10 Palas that becomes consumed.--Hence if the trader declares that more than this has been consumed in the process of inanufacture), he should be punished. Again Yajñavalkya (2.179)— [612] 'Coarse Wool and Cotton yarn gain 10 per cent in weight in weaving; Wool and Cotton yarn of middling counts gain 5 per cent; those of the finer counts gain 3 per cent.' ** Altering'--the man shows to the other party one thing but delivers to him something totally different, and of inferior quality; e.g. having shown a sealed packet as containing pearls, he delivers a packet containing pebbles-Mitāksarā).

·THEFT AND ROBBERY 125 Rough Wool and Cotton-yarn, 100 Palas in weight, is made over for weaving,—the resultant cloth is 10 Palas more in weight. In the case of Wool and Yarn of the middle count, the excess is 5 Palas, and in the case of Wool and Yarn of finer counts, the excess is 3 Palas. SECRET THIEVES On this subject says Manu (2.276) [613] 'If thieves commit theft at night, after breaking into a house, the King shall cut off their hands and have them impaled on a pointed stake.' And Vyāsa- [614] 'If a thief breaks into a house and takes many things, he should be made to restore the things to the owner and he should be impaled on a stake.' Brhaspati (22.17) - [615] 'House-breakers shall be compelled to surrender their plunder and impaled on a stake. Highway robbers shall be hung by the neck on a tree,' House-breakers should be made to surrender to the owner what they have stolen, and then they should be impaled on a sharp stake; while highway men are to be hung on trees; this is the purport of the text. Byhaspati (22.18) [616] 'Those who have kidnapped a man shall be burnt on slow straw-fire; and those who have kidnapped a woman shall be burnt either on a bed of red-hot iron or on slow straw-fire.' ‘Kata' is straw. This rule should be understood to be applicable to cases of kidnapping of men and women of high families; as declared by Manu in the following text- [617] 'For taking away persons of high families-specially women and the principal gems, the thief deserves immolation.' 'Principal gems'-Emerald and the rest. Vyāsa- [618] 'If a man kidnaps a man he should have his hands and feet cut off and then he should be exposed on the road-crossing.' This is meant for the kidnapping of persons of the middle-class. [619] 'For kidnapping a man, the penalty prescribed is the highest amercement.' This is meant for the kidnapping of men who belong to families that are not so good. [620] 'For kidnapping a woman, the penalty is the confiscation of entire property; and for kidnapping & maiden, it is immolation.' This is meant for the kidnapping of women of the lower classes.

·126 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Manu (8.325) [621] For stealing cows belonging to Brāhmanas,- for piercing their nostrils, and for the stealing of animals,-the thief should be made half-footed.' [622] 'For the stealing of the larger animals, or of weapons or medicines, the King shall determine the punishment after considering the time and the purpose '-(Manu 8.326). * Tülikā'-nostril; of this there is 'bhedana', piercing.* 'Time'-war-time, etc.—'Purpose-riding, etc. Hence if a man steals a horse during war-time, he deserves very heavy punishment.-Larger animals'- such as elephants and horses.* Nārada- [623] 'One who steals the larger animals should suffer the bighest amercement; one who steals animals of the middle size, the middle amercement; and one who steals the smaller animals, the lowest amercement,' The exact amount shall be determined in the manner laid down in Vişnu's text (No. 627 below). Vyāsa [624] "The stealer of a horse should have his hands, feet and loins cut off, and then killed.' Yajñavallya (2.273) [625] 'Kidnappers, stealers of horses and elephants and those who strike with violence should be impaled.' (626] 'Those who break into a store-house or armoury or a temple,—and those who steal elephants, horses and chariots, these the King shall put to death, without hesitation -(Manu 9. 280). Dişņu (5.77-78) [627] 'The stealer of a cow, a horse, a camel or an elephant should have one hand and one foot cut off; the stealer of a goat and such animals should have a hand cut off.' The elephant and horse meant here are those of the lowest class ;- the cow (or ox) meant is an old one, and the horse also one with no special qualifications; or the time meant is one at which there is no war imminent. It is for this reason that a lighter punishment has been prescribed. I Vyāsa [628] 'One who steals an animal should have half of his foot cut off by a weapon not very sharp.' * Medhătithi is responsible for taking the first item in Text 621 as meaning 'the stealing of cows'. The simple meaning appears to be-'If a man pierces the nostrils of a barren cow among cows belonging to a Brāhmana'. This is the explanation that the Chintāmanand the Ratnākara seem to favour. † In the case of a sword stolen under normal circumstances, the penalty would be a fine; but if it is stolen at the time when an enemy is near at hand and ready to strike, the penalty shall be nothing short of death. Similarly in the case of a medicine, if it is stolen at a time when it is most needed for saving the life of a patient, the penalty shall be very much heavier than what it would be if it were stolen at other times--(Medhătithi). 1 The reading of the printed text is corrupt; the sentence should read as Karituragau atyantāpakrstau uddho gauh ashvo vā aguņavān'.

·THEFT AND ROBBERY 127 That is, one of his feet should be lopped off with a blunt spade or some such weapon. Manu (8.342) [629] 'One who chains the unchained, or unchains the enchained, takes away a slave, a horse or a chariot,-incurs the guilt of a thief.' If one, with a view to steal them, chains those that are unchained, or unchains those that have been enchained, ,-mor takes away a slave or a horse or a chariot, should be punished like a thief. * Manu (9.277)- [630] 'Of the man who unties the knot (of cattle), the King should have two fingers cut off on the first conviction; a hand and a foot on the second conviction; and on the third conviction, he deserves to be put to death.' For the purpose of stealing an animal, if a man unties the knot of the rope with which the animal is tied, his two fingers shall be cut off, on the first conviction; on the second conviction, his hand and foot shall be cut off ; and on the third conviction, he should be killed. † Yājñavalkya (2.274) [631] "The Lifter and the Cut-knot should have their Hand-pincer cut off.' That is, one who, with a view to steal cattle, collects them or unties their knots, should have his Thumb and the Forefinger cut off. Brhaspati (Manu 8.320) [632] 'For one who steals ten Jars of grain, there shall be immolation; in other cases, the thief should be made to pay eleven times as much as fine, and also to make good the loss to the owner.' According to the Ratnākara and other authorities--12 Prasrtis (Handfuls) make one Kudava; 4 Kudavas make 1 Prastha (Seer); and 20 Seers make one Kumbha (Jar);--such a 'Jar', by the measure of a man's food, is called Khāri' among Maithilas.-A man who steals more than this ‘Jarful' of grain should be put to death. If he steals less than a 'Jarful', he should be made to give to the owner an equal quantity of grain, and also a fine to the King, which shall be eleven times the stolen quantity. Others, however, have defined the 'Kumbha' as follows * Hantā' is the reading adopted by Chintāmaņi, which explains it as 'vināshi'; though the reading in Manu's text is 'hartā '. so also in Chintāmani MS. a, and in Vivādaratnākara. This also appears to be the right reading, as the text occurs in the section on 'Theft'. We have therefore stretched the meaning of the term 'vināshi', as occurring in the Chintāmaņi, and taken it to mean 'stealer'. The stealing or taking away of the slave and the horse has been explained by Medhātithi in the sense of enticing away,--the slave by placing before him the prospect of a happier life, and the horse by presenting before him a mare.—Medhätithi notes the explanation provided by 'some one', of the term ashvaratha' as the chariot-maker, who is taken as including all kinds of artisans and mechanics. ť "Granthibheda' has been variously explained:-The Mitāksarā explains it as cut-purse; Medhätithi as 'one who opens the knots of bundles of cloth'; he also suggests another meaning the man who has been caught and tied up, if he loosens the knot of his bondage and tries to slink away'. [See next text from Yājñavalkya which contains the same term.] In some places we find the reading 'angulih' (Plural) in place of 'angula' (Dual); in the former case, all the fingers are to be cut off; under the latter, only two-the Thumb and the Index-finger-according to Vivādaratnākara, p. 321 and Viramitrodaya, p. 494.

·128 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI [633] 'As measures of grain, 4 Palas make 1 Kudava, 4 Kudavas make 1 Prastha, 4 Prasthas make 1 Ādhaka, 4 Ādhakas make 1 Droņa ; [634] ' 16 Dronas make 1 Khari, 20 Droņas make 1 Kumbha (Jar), and 10 Kumbhas make 1 Vāha.' [635] 'If the cultivator has been at fault, his fine shall be ten times his share; half of this shall be the fine imposed if the loss has been due to the fault of the cultivator's labourer, without knowledge of the cultivator himself '-(Manu 8.243). When the owner of the land has made over the land for cultivation to a cultivator, on a definite agreement regarding their respective shares in the produce,---and there is some loss due to the remissness of the cultivator, this latter will have to pay as fine which shall be ten times his share in the produce; if however, the loss has been due to the fault of the labourers employed by the cultivator, this latter has to pay a fine equal to five times his share. These fines go to the King; as for the owner of the land, he gets his own share of the produce from the cultivator.* With reference to Wooden Articles, etc. Närada says- [636] 'In the case of articles weighed by scales, -of those that are measured, and of those that are counted, if they are of superior valve,--the fine shall be ten times the value of the article stolen.' Weighed by scales'-such as Camphor;— Measured'-such as Grains ;- nted'.o.g. Oardamum and nuts, etc.; if these are of su value-as compared to the Wooden Box, etc. So the meaning is that if there is stealing of things weighed, measured or counted, which are more valuable than wooden articles, the fine shall be ten times their value. Says Manu (8.321-322) [637] 'In the case of articles weighed by scales such as gold and silver,- and also in the case of clothes of good quality--if more than a hundred are stolen, there should be immolation ;- [638] ‘if more than fifty are stolen, the hands should be cut off; in other cases, the King shall inflict a fine eleven times the value of what is stolen.' (a) Of gold and silver, if more than 100 Karşas is stolen,-or if of clothes, worth more than a hundred, is stolen,--the stealer shall suffer death. (6) If he steals, of the same things, more than fifty, his hands should be cut off. (c) If he steals the things worth less than fifty,--he should be made to pay ten times the value of the things stolen. There is to be restoring of the stolen articles in all the three cases. Shankha [639] 'For stealing gold, silver and gems, corporeal punishment or cutting off of limbs.' * The explanation provided by Halāyudha, as noted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 322) is different-If there has been loss due to the fault of the owner of the land then he shall be fined ten times of the share due to the King, but if the loss has been due to the fault of his labourers, his fine shall be half of it. This is in accordance with Medhâtithi.

·THEFT AND ROBBERY 129 For stealing a small quantity of gold or silver, the thief should be freely beaten; if it is less then his ear should be cut off.* Visnu (5.87)- [640] "The stealer of gems should suffer the highest amercement.' That is, one who steals gems of the inferior kind is to be fined 1,000 Panas.t Shankha- [641] 'For stealing ploughing implements, 108,--in accordance with the time.' That is, if one steals the implements, during the times of cultivation, he should be fined 108. Manu (8.331)- [642] 'For stealing husked grains, or vegetables, roots or fruits, there shall be a fine of 100 in a case where the offender is not a relative, and 50 when he is a relative.' - When small quantities of husked grains lying in the threshing yard, or vegetables, roots or fruits, - are stolen,--and the stealer is not some one related to the owner, he shall be fined 100; but if he is related to the owner, he shall be fined only 50.1 Again Manu (8.330) [643] 'For stealing flowers, green corns, shrubs, creepers, trees and small quantities of unhusked grains, the fine shall be 5 Krsnalas.' When there is theft of Kusumbha, etc., and of green corns'-i.e. cornblades in the shape of fodder-and of small quantities of unhusked corn. blades lying in the yard.-or of shrubs, creepers and trees,—there shall be a fine of a Mäşa of Gold. Vyāsa- [644] "For stealing small quantities of grain, or milk, or milk-products, the thief should be made to make over an equal quantity to the owner, and double of it as fine to the King.' * The reading both in the printed Edition and Ma is defective. The explanation provided in Vivādaratnākara (p. 324) is as follows—corporeal punishment' beating ;-limbs-ear, etc. This refers to cases where the value of the stolen property is less than 50; and also where the thief is very poor. † According to Vivādaratnākara (p. 324), this refers to cases where the culprit is one on whom the death-penalty cannot be inflicted, but is rich enough to pay & heavy fine. | Medhatithi notes several interpretations of this text, based upon the signification of the terms 'sānvaya' and niranvaya':-(1) 'anvaya' is affectionate apology, in some such terms as 'I took away these grains because I thought that what was yours was mine also,-if you do not think so, then please take this back'. (2) 'Anvaya' is relationship; so that if there is no relationship between the owner and the stealer.(3) 'Anvaya' is keeper or guard; so that when the grain is in charge of a keeper, it is 'Sānvaya'. The punishment here laid down is for stealing grains from the Threshing Yard; in the case of stealing them from the store-room, the punishment shall be eleven times the value of the grain stolen, as laid down in Manu 8.321-322. $ The 'Kronald' is a coin of various denominations, made of different materials; the exact fine therefore shall be determined in each case by the value and utility of the article stolen; but the Ancients have held that the Krenala is of gold only- (Medhătithi). 9 ·130 VIVĀDACHINTĀMANI Manu (8.326–329) [645] 'In the case of the theft of yarns, cotton, fermenting drug, cowdung, molasses, curds, milk, skimmed curd, water and grass ;- [646] of vessels made of hamboos or cane-as also of salts, earthenware, earth and ashes; [647] of fish, birds, oils, clarified butter, meat, honey, and other animal. products, [648] 'spirituous liquors, cooked rice and all kinds of fruit,--the fine sball be double the value of the thing stolen.' This applies to cases where small quantities of yarn, etc. have been stolen. [649] 'If these things are stolen after they have been refined and are ready for use, one who steals them shall be fined by the King 100;-as also one who steals fire from the house - (Manu 8.333). The yarns and other things when they have been refined and ready for use.--'Fire-installed according to Shrauta or Smärta rites.* Närada [650] . For stealing wooden vessels, grasses and such things, or earthenware or vessels made of bamboo and cane,-leather-thongs, bones and skins,- vegetables, fresh roots, flowers or fruits,-milk and milk products, salt and oil, cooked food, prepared food, wines, cooked rice,--and all things of small value ---the fine shall be double the value of the thing stolen.' This refers to cases where large quantities of wood, etc. are stolen. Manu (8.319) [651] 'When one steals the rope and the water-pot from the well, 2-or damages the water-drinking booth,-he should be punished with a fine of 1 Māşa and should replace the article to its place.' The term "rajjughatam' is a Samāhara-Dvandva compound. The meaning is that if one steals the rope or the water-pot from a well, should restore it to the well, and should pay the fine of 1 Māşa; which is to be paid also for the damaging of a water-drinking booth. Vişnu [652] 'For stealing things which have not been mentioned specifically, the thief [should be made to pay] their price.' The words 'should be made to pay has to be added. Nārada [653] 'The penalties that have been ordained in regard to the three kinds of Violence may be inflicted in the case of the stealing of the three kinds of things.' This rule applies to the case of those unspecified things-belonging to the three kinds of (1) high, (2) middle, and (3) low. * The 'fire' meant here is-(a) that kindled for cooking meals, or (b) that kindled in connection with the Agnihotra-offerings, or (c) that which has been set up, without consecration, for the comfort of the cold-stricken poor-(Medhātithi). 9B ·THEFT AND ROBBERY 131 6 Kātyāyana [654] ‘By whatever limb the thief injures a man, that limb the King shall cut off; so that he may not repeat the offence.' Brhaspati- [655] 'If a man, without permission of the owner, takes away grass or wood or fruit or flower, -he should have his hand cut off.' This applies to cases where the grass, etc. belong to owners of specially superior classes. Gotama. [656] 'No corporeal punishment shall be inflicted on the Brahmana. He may be boycotted, or publicly disgraced, or banished or branded.-If he has no livelihood, he should perform expiations.' Karmaviyoga', 'Boycotting',-i.e. no business shall be done with a Brāhmana-thief;— Vikhyāpana", 'Public Disgrace',his being a thief being made known by parading him seated on a donkey;-- Vivāsana', 'Banishment”, -turning him out of the country;--'Ankakarana', 'Branding-branding him on the forehead with the mark of a thief.-'If he has no livelihood, he should perform expiations'; - even when the Brāhmana takes to stealing because he has no other livelihood, he shall not be punished with having his hands cut off and so forth; he should be made to restore the stolen goods and to perform the expiatory rite prescribed for stealing. A pastamba- [667] 'In the case of Man-slaughter, Theft, and Taking away of Land [the Brāhmaṇa should have his eyes taken out).' 'Theft'-here stands for stealing Gold. In the case of these three offences, non-Brāhmaṇas have to be killed, but the Brāhmaṇa has to have his eyes taken out. This applies to the case of inferior Brāhmaṇas. Närada- [658] "The property of thieves, being acquired by immoral means, consists of filth; hence the King shall inflict corporeal punishment on them, and not inflict the penalty of fine.' Them'-i.e. thieves other than Brāhmanas. Shankha- [659] 'For the Brāhmana, shaving of the whole head; for others, parading on a donkey.' This applies to the Brāhmana engaged in a sacrificial performance. Others'-Ksattriya and others of the middle class. All thieves are first of all to be made to restore the stolen property to the owner, and it is only after that that the prescribed punishment shall be inflicted on them. Says Yajñavallya (2.270) [660] 'The thief should be made to restore the stolen goods and then to be punished with the various forms of corporeal punishment. If he is a Brāhmana, he should be branded and banished.' * Branded'-on the forehead, with the mark of the female organ and other marks. This applies to the Brāhmaṇa of the middle class.

·132 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Says Katyāyana, in connection with Brāhmaṇas [661] 'Whether they have been caught with the stolen property or not, if it is proved by indications that they have actually committed the theft,--they should be deprived of their entire property ;- [662] 'those who possess good qualities should be kept, till death, in ironchains, on low diet, and do work for the King; such is the opinion of Kaushika.' Hodha' is stolen property.--Entire property',--this applies to the Brāhmaṇa who is rich, but devoid of learning and character; while being kept in chains, and on low diet and serving the King applies to the Brāhmaņa who is similarly devoid of learning and character, and has no property.* Byhaspati (22.22) [663] 'When one endowed with character and learning has committed a theft, if he were imprisoned, he would suffer much; he should therefore be made to restore the stolen goods to the owner and to perform expiatory rites.' Yājñavalkya [664] 'For the Shūdra the guilt of theft is eight-fold; for the Vaishya, sixteenfold; for the Ksattriya, thirty-two-fold; for the Brāhmana, sixty-four-fold, or even a hundred-fold, or twice sixty-four; as he should be cognisant of the good and bad points of the act.' The qualification cognisant, etc.' is to be construed with all. Thus the meaning is as follows:-(a) If the theft has been committed by a Shadra who is cognisant of the character of the act, then the punishment inflicted upon him shall be eight times of what has been prescribed; for the Vaishya similarly qualified, sixteen-fold; for a Ksattriya of the same qualifications, thirty-two times; for a similar Brāhmaṇa, sixty-four times; if the latter is still more qualified, it will be a hundred times; for one possessed of still higher qualities, a hundred and twenty-eight times. SEMI-THIEVES Manu says (8.340) [665] 'The Brāhmaṇa who receives gifts from thieves should be dealt with like thieven,-even though he may have earned them through sacrificing, and teaching.' Again T666] "The King shall punish like thieves those who provide fire, food, weapons and shelter to thieves; as also those who help to place the booty within their reach :-(Manu 9.278). * *(a) If the culprit is one endowed with character and learning, he should be banished;(6) if he is not so endowed, and is wealthy, his entire property shall be confiscated; (c) if he is poor and devoid of learning and character, he shall be imprisoned, etc.—(Vivādaratnākara, p. 331). † When such help is given through fear or ignorance, this rule does not apply;- says Vivādaratnākara (p. 339).

·THEFT AND ROBBERY 133 'Fire'-such as is helpful in stealing.--'Bhakta'-food for the thieves.- "Weapons'-such as are helpful in stealing.--'Avakäsha'-lodging for the thieves.— Sannidhātrnaḥ'—those who place the stealer and the stolen within each other's reach. Yajnavalkya (2.276) [667] 'One who knowingly provides, for the thief or for the murderer, food, shelter, fire, water, advice, implements or funds should suffer the highest amercement.' The 'fire' and 'water' meant are such as help in the stealing.--'Advice' regarding the method of stealing.—'Implements'-needed for the stealing; such as the spade and the like.-Funds--travelling expenses for the man going away with the booty.-"Jānataḥ-i.e. knowingly.--One who does this should suffer the highest amercement.-One who helps the murderer also in the said manner should suffer the same penalty. Nārada [668] "Those who provide food and shelter to operating thieves,—and also those who, able to catch them, let them go--shall be punished like thieves.' Those who provide to the thief any one of these things, and those who, while capable of catching them, let them go,--all these shall be punished like thieves. [669] 'Those who invite thieves, those who direct them, those who provide them with opportunities, and those who hide them,--all these should be punished like the thieves themselves.' Those who invite (prompt) or guide the thieves,- or place them in favourable positions - -or bide them when they are chased by the owners of the stolen property, all these are as good as thieves. Kätyāyanam [670] 'Those who buy stolen property, and those who receive it in gift, and also those who hide them.-should all be punished like thieves.' That is, one who buys stolen goods—knowing them to be as such, those who receive them in gift, and those who conceal them,- should be punished like the thief. In continuation of the word 'should kill', Vişnu says- [671] "Those who openly provide food and shelter to thieves, except in cases where the King is unable to protect his people.' That is, in the event of the King being unable to suppress thieves, if one provides food and such things to them, in order to save himself, he does nothing wrong. Manu (9.272)— [672] 'If those entrusted with the work of guarding the realm, and those vassals who have been ordered to assist in the work, should remain neutral during raids against thieves,-the King should punish them like thieves.' That is, the man put in charge of the realm,-as also the vassal similarly entrusted with its safety,-if these remain indifferent, they should be punished like thieves.

·134 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Again (673] 'If people do not hasten to assist, to the best of their power,—whenever a village is attacked, or a dyke is broken, or stolen goods are detected, --they should be banished along with their chattels :-(Manu 9.274). "Grāmaghātē'-when there is disturbance in the village; 'Thītābhange'- when there is breaking of the dyke that had been set up for the protection of the crops ;-where stolen goods are seen in the hands of thieves on the road;if under such circumstances, any one does not come to the rescue to the best of his power, even though he may not have been appointed to the work, he should be banished from the realm, along with his property, EXCEPTIONS TO THEFT' Manu [674] 'If a twice-born person, running short of provision while on a journey, takes two sugar-cane sticks, or two roots, from another man's field, he should not be punished.' Kșīņavrtti'-one has no food with him for the journey. [675] ‘Similarly, if he takes trees, roots, fruits and fuel for the Fire, or grass for the feeding of cows,—it is not theft-says Manu.' 'Fruits'-i.e. those not gathered by others. That this is meant is clear from the words of Gotama- (676] ‘Fruits that have not been gathered.' Similarly one may take fuel belonging to others, for the purpose of lighting the Sacrificial Fire, or other's grass for the feeding of cows. In connection with the duties of the King, says Āpastamba- [677] 'In villages and towns, he should post noble, honest and truthful persons for the protection of the people.—There should be officers under them with the same qualifications; -eight miles around the town shall be guarded against thieves, -and two miles around a village.' That is, for the protection of villages and towns, the King should appoint guardians of high character, with equally qualified assistants;- and these shall have to restore whatever may be stolen within a radius of four miles round the town. Similarly the man placed in charge of the village should restore the property stolen within the radius of two miles round the village. Says Kätyāyana- [678] 'When a theft has been committed in a house, and the thief is not detected, then the stolen property should be made good by the districtofficer, the police officers and the detectives.' The House is mentioned only as an example. What is meant is that, if even after search the thief is not detected, the King shall make the officer in charge of the detection or the district-officer to make good the stolen property. Arakşaka' is the officer known as the 'Koțavāra' ;-the 'Deshapati (Dikpāla) is the officer in charge of the district.

·THEFT AND ROBBERY 135 6 Katyāyana- [679] 'Property stolen on the outskirts of the village shall be made good by the village-officer; what is stolen in the pasture-land should be made good by the owner; and what is stolen outside the pasture-land should be made good by the detective officer.' Vivita', 'Pasture-land'-i.e. Forest; it should be made good by the owner, i.e. by the King himself;—if it has been committed, outside the pasture-land-i.e. in the cultivated fields,—then by the 'detective officer', who has allowed the thief to escape. Again- (680] 'Whenever anything is stolen in the kingdom, the King himself shall make good the loss; and on search, if the stolen property is found, the King shall take that for himself;- [681] 'He shall try to restore to the owner an article exactly like the one stolen; if that is not possible, he shall pay its price; otherwise be incurs sin.' Svarūpa'—the same thing. Says Dyddha Manum [682] 'If a portion of the stolen property has been recovered by the owner from a certain person, the rest of it also should be realised from him,- if the owner has fully established his claim.' When a part of the stolen property has been recovered by the owner from a certain person, the remainder also he shall obtain from that same person; but only in the event of the owner claiming that remainder as his own, and the thief denying it,-if the owner swears to it. In case, however, there is no ground for realising the remainder from the man who has been suspected to be the thief, then the aforesaid rule stands. Yājñavalkya (2.173) [683] 'When & stolen or lost property is brought to the King by police officers or district-officers, it shall be restored to the owner, if it is within a year of the theft; if it is after a year, the King himself shall take it.' Shaulkika' is the police-officer in charge of the safety of the realm.- "Sthänapäla' is the officer in charge of the district. 'Or' indicates that no restriction is meant (as that these two officers alone being the persons bringing up the stolen or lost article).- Nasta'-lost through carelessness; * Apahạta'-stolen by thieves. Thus what is meant is as follows When a certain thing has been lost or stolen,-and it is brought over to the King by some one other than its owner,-it should be kept by the King for one year; if the owner turns up within the year, he shall receive the thing; if he does not, then after the year, the King of the realm shall take it for himself. Manu (8.34) [684) 'The property that has been lost and found shall be kept in the charge of vigilant men; if the King detects thieves getting at such things, he shall have them killed by an elephant.' 'Tatra', 'at such things '-while the property is guarded by the King's officers.-Ibhēna'-by an elephant.

·CHAPTER XIV 6 Sähasa'-Acts of Violence-Crimes [NoteThere is some confusion in the use of this term 'Sāhasa'. It is clear that in its exact connotation it stands for 'acts of violence', and should include all crimes. According to Manu (8.332), 'if an act is committed with violence and in the presence of men, it is Sāhasa'. Nārada has classified Sāhasa under the five heads of (1) 'Man-slaughter', (2) 'Robbery and Theft', (3) 'Adultery', (4) 'Defamation and Abuse', and (5) 'Hurt'. Of these, the last two and the second have gone before; and the third (Adultery) is coming under Chapter XV; so the present chapter deals with all other crimesincluding Man-slaughter.] On this subject, says Närada (14.1) [685] 'Whatever act is done with violence by persons inflamed with the pride of strength is called Sāhasa, Crime,--the term being derived from Sahas which connotes Violence.' Again- [686] "Theft is a special form of Crime; its difference (from Crime in general) is thus described-while Crime consists of an attack with violence and force, Theft consists of an attack through fraud :-(Nārada 14.12). That is, the attack that is launched with violence within cognizance of the guardian is "Crime', while the attack that is made under 'fraud'-i.e. without cognizance in the absence) of the guardian, is 'Theft'. The various forms of Crime also have been described by Nārada (14.4) [687] '(a) Destroying, reviling, disfiguring or otherwise injuring fruits, roots, water and the like,-or agricultural implements ;-) assaulting another man's wife ;-and (c) offences encompassing life;—are crimes of (a) the lowest, (b) the middle, and (c) the highest degree respectively.' In regard to (a), says Manu (?) [688] 'Agricultural Implements, Dykes, Flowers, Roots and Fruits, one who destroys these or steals them, should be fined 100 and more, according to the gravity of the offence.--Cattle, Clothes, Food and Drinks, Household Implements, one who destroys these or steals them, should be fined 200 and more.-Women and Men, Gold and Gems, Property of Deities and Brāhmanas, Silks and other valuable things, one who steals these, should be fined the value of the article, or double--in accordance with the character of the culprit. All men who kill others should be put to death, in order to prevent the repetition of such Crimes. Agricultural implements - the plough and the like-Household imple. ments-the stone-slab and the rest. Hundred and more'-a Hundred being the minimum.

·2 'SĀHASA '-ACTS OF VIOLENCE --CRIMES 137 Nārada (14.7-9, 11) [689] 'The punishment inflicted upon the culprit should be proportionate to the heaviness of the Crime committed; but it shall not be less than a Hundred for a Crime of the first degree; not less than Five Hundred for a Crime of the middle degree; corporeal punishment, confiscation of the entire property, banishment, branding and amputation of the offending limb are also prescribed for Crimes of the highest degree.- [690] The first two of these may be socially associated with after they have undergone the punishment; but one who has committed a Crime of the highest degree should not be conversed with even after having undergone punishment.' The law briefly is as follows:-(a) If a small amount of property has been stolen, or destroyed, the offender shall be fined a hundred and over ;- (6) if a field or dam or such thing is taken away, or destroyed by force, the stealer or criminal should be made to pay to the owner of the property a sum equal to the price of the article; but a man of the lower class should be fined double ; (c) the criminal of the highest degree, even where purified by the punishment,- should not be permitted to associate with people in any way. Says Manu (8.288) [691] 'When a man, knowingly or unknowingly, damages the goods of another, he shall give satisfaction to him and pay to the King a fine equal to it in value.' Yājñavalkya (2.230) - [692] “The taking away of what is public property is what has been called Crime; the penalty fo. it is a fine which is double the amount of the price of the property concerned. If the charge is denied, the fine is to be quadruple.' The term 'Sāmānyaprābha', 'public property', here stands for what belongs to another person. Again [693] 'For damaging a wall, the fine is 15 Panas; for cracking it, 20 Panas; for cutting it in two, and for pulling it down, 40 Paņas each.' That is, (a) for 'damaging' i.e. for shaking and loosening, - a wall belonging to another person, the fine is 15 Panas;—() for "cracking' it, i.e. for loosening its coments, 20 Panas ;-and (c) for 'cutting it in two', and for 'pulling it down',-for both these, it is 40 Panas each. In every case, there is to be rebuilding of the wall, according to Manu's doctrine that'he shall give satisfaction to the other party' (Text 691 above). [694] 'In the case of Leather and Leather-goods, as also in that of Wooden and Clay goods, the fine is five times the value of the article; so also in the case of Flowers, Roots and Fruits.' * There is some difference of opinion in the interpretation of this text: According to Aparārka it means that the fine for damaging the wall is 5,--for cracking it, 10, --for cutting in two, 20,—and the man who pulls it down should pay the cost of rebuilding it.-According to the Mitākṣarā, the fines for the first three acts are 10, 15 and 20,--and for pulling down it is to be the sum total of these three, i.e. 45, along with the cost of rebuilding it.

·138 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI 'Leather-goods'-e.g. Shoes.--The meaning of the first term 'Charma', *Leather', is quite clear.—Wooden goods'--such as the pot for measuring rice.-Clay-goods'-e.g. the Jar. When these articles are destroyed by force, the fine shall be five times the value of the thing destroyed; so also in the case of flowers, roots and fruits. The fine of a hundred and more' that Manu has prescribed (Text No. 688) in connection with Flowers, etc. applies to the case of specially valuable flowers, etc. In all cases, the owner of the article has to be satisfied. Kätyāyana- (695] 'If a man brings about the damage, breakage or destruction of any article, he should suffer the first amercement; and the article itself should be restored to the owner.' 'Damage is some slight injury;-. Breakage' connotes half-destruction; -and 'Destruction' connotes entire destruction. The article' meant here is a piece of Rock-crystal and such things.Dravyabhāk, etc.'- i.e. the Rock-crystal itself is to be restored to the owner. Yajnavalkya (2.224) [696] 'If a man throws into another man's house such substances as cause pain and suffering, he shall be fined 16 Panas. If he throws such things as are a danger to life, he should suffer the middle amercement.' 'Causing pain and suffering such as Thors.--'Danger to life'--such as Snakes.-If one throws such things into another man's house,-the former is to be fined 16 Panas, and the latter is to suffer the middle amercement. Says Visnu (5.108) [697] 'If one demolishes a house or a wall and such structures, he should suffer the middle amercement and should have it repaired.' That is, if a man demolishes the wall or such things in another man's house, he should be made by the King to suffer the middle amercement; and he should also restore the wall, etc. demolished by him to its former condition. Again- (698] 'If one throws into another man's house things likely to hurt, he should be fined 100 Panas'-(Vişnu 5.110). The 'hurt' meant here is of the very painful kind. Yājñavalkya (2.232–237) [699] 'One who insults or disobeys his superiors, one who strikes his elder brother's wife, one who does not deliver a message (or who does not give what he has promised according to Mitākşară and Aparārka), one who breaks into a sealed (locked) room, one who inflicts injury on his neighbours, kinsmen and others, each of these shall be fined 50 Panas; [700] 'One who has intercourse with a widow, without justification, one who does not respond to call for help, one who calls for help without any reason, a Chāņdāla who wilfully touches superior persons, one who feeds Shüdra mendicants at rites in honour of deities and fathers, one who utters an improper oath, one who does the work of experts ·'SĀHASA '-ACTS OF VIOLENCE-CRIMES 139 for which he is not qualified, one who has deprived trees (or v.l. bulls) and small animals of their virility, one who deals dishonestly with common property, one who destroys the embryo of a slave-girl,mand any one out of the following pairs who abandons the other without the latter becoming an outcast-Father and Son, two Friends, two Brothers, Husband and Wife, Teacher and Pupil;each one of these shall be fined 100 Panas.' 'Arghya', 'Superiors'-e.g. the Preceptor;-one who does the insulting or disobeying of these. Striking --Beating.–Saudista'--the message that has been sent.-Sealed'--the house closed with a seal.-Samanta' are neighbours; 'Kulika'-Kinsmen;-one who does not invite these on the occasion of arspicious ceremonies.-All these should be fined 50 Paņas. 'Without justification'-i.e. without being appointed' according to law, if one has intercourse with a widow.The penalty here prescribed is for the crime of non-appointment; that for adultery is another punishment.-—*Cry for help'-i.e. when people attacked by thieves call for help, if one does not ‘respond',--.e. does not answer the cry.--'Improper oath'such as 'I may. ....Mother if I have done this'.—'Not qualified '—incapable;--'work of experts'-such as Yogic practices;-if a man proceeds to work for which he is not fit, he should be punished.—The 'virility' of 'trees' consists in capacity to produce fruits ;-one who deprives them of this capacity, by means of medicines.—Common property', --one who appropriates to himself what really is common to others.-Between Father and Son, between two Friends, between two Brothers, between Husband and Wife, between Teacher and Pupil,-one who abandons the other without the latter becoming an outcast, which is the sole ground for abandoning,--the fine for each of these is 100 Paņas. Says Manu (8.389) [701] 'Neither the Mother, nor the Father, nor the Wife, nor the Son deserves to be forsaken; one who forsakes these, unless they are outcasts, should be fined 600 by the King.'* Stri'-Wife;forsaking'-not feeding and maintaining in the manner prescribed. With reference to these same persons, says Sharkha- [702] 'One who wilfully forsakes his Son and others should suffer a fine of 200.' The penalty prescribed by Yājñavalkya (under Text No. 700 above) is meant for the case of forsaking between the two relatives both of whom are illiterate; that laid down by Manu (Text No. 701) is meant for the case where between the two persons, there is wilful forsaking of the illiterate by the learned; while that prescribed by Shankha (Text No. 702) is for the case where between the two persons, there is wilful forsaking of the learned * As regards the Mother, Shătātapa has declared that 'to the Son, the Mother never becomes an outcast'; the 'forsaking' of the Mother would consist in turning her out of the house; that of the outcast Wife would consist in giving up all intercourse with her and forbidding her to do household work; but food and clothing would continue to be given-Medhätithi). According to Aparārka (p. 823), the punishment here prescribed is for one who has forsaken all the persons mentioned. 'Forsakes -i.e. omits to render the treatment that is their due. The punishment here laid down is for one who, while fully cognisant of what is right and wrong, forsakes any one of the persons mentioned-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 357).

·140 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI > by the illiterate.-Similarly there may be assumed the penalty as between two learned persons. Sharkham [703] 'For ill-treating one's Father, Mother or Teacher,--there should be cutting off of the limb.' That is, that limb should be cut off with which he strikes. Vişnui (5.98–102)- [704] 'One who insults a Brāhmana by offering him something uneatable should be fined 16 Suvarnas; one who offers him such food as would deprive him of his caste should be fined 100 Suvarnas; for offering spirituous liquor, one shall be put to death.–For one who insults a Kşattriya in the same manner, the fine shall be half; half of that again for insulting a Vaishya.' Uneatable'-e.g. Ordure.--As would deprive him of his caste e.g. Garlic.—Sură' is well known.-' Tadardham'—the pronoun 'tat' stands for what has gone immediately before. This rule is meant for cases where the Brāhmana and others insulted are possessed of very high qualifications. Says Yājñavalkya (2.295) [705] 'For insulting a Brāhmana by offering him what is uneatable, the fine is the highest amercement; for insulting a Kşattriya, the middle amercement; for insulting a Vaishya, the lowest amercement; and half of that for insulting & Shūdra.' The milk of the Kapilā cow would be 'what is uneatable for the Shüdra. -Half of that'-i.e. 125 Panas. This is for cases where the Brāhmana and the rest are of the inferior order. Manu (?) [706] 'One who makes a Vaishya or a Kşattriya or a Brāhmaṇa eat or drink what should not be eaten or drunk should suffer the lowest, the middle or the highest amercement, respectively; and in the case of the Shūdra, the fine should be 54 Paņas only.' This applies to the very inferior class of Shūdra. The rest is parallel to what has been declared by Yājñavalkya (Text No. 705 above). Vişnu (5.173)- [707] 'One who eats such food as leads to loss of caste should be banished.' That is, the Brāhmana who, of his own accord, eats such things as Garlic and the like, should be banished from the country. Yājñavalkya (2.300) [708] 'One who declares his wife's paramour to be a thief should be fined 500; if he receives a bribe from him and allows him to escape, he should be fined eight times that amount.' When a man is caught in one's house who is really the paramour of a lady of the house,--but for fear of family-scandal, the master of the house declares him to be a thief and conceals the fact of his being a paramour,- such a master shall be fined 500. If he accepts a bribe from the man thus caught, and lets him go, he should be fined eight times 500.-Others hold that the fine is to be eight times the amount received as bribe.

·< SÄHASA'-ACTS OF VIOLENCE-CRIMES 141 Again- [709] 'One who sells clothes obtained from dead bodies, one who strikes his Teacher, one who rides on the King's conveyance, or sits on the King's seat-should suffer the middle amercement'(Yājñazalkya 2.302). 'Clothes, etc.'-i.e. the piece of cloth in which the dead body had been wrapped; one who sells it, without saying that it is so. :-Rides or sits, etc.'- i.e. without the King's permission. Manu (9.290)- [710] 'In all cases of Malevolent Rites, the fine shall be 200; as also in the case of magic spells by persons not related, and also in that of various kinds of sorcery.' [711] 'For adulterating unadulterated commodities, and for breaking and wrongly boring gems,t—the penalty is the lowest amercement :-(Manu 9.286). [712] 'If a man of low caste, through greed, subsists by the occupations of his superiors,--the King shall deprive him of his property and immediately banish him. (a) 'Malevolent rites-e.g. when one performs the Shyēna sacrifice with a view to bringing about the death of some one who has done him no wrong; (6) when one undertakes the treatment of diseases without being an expert; (c) when one performs such improper acts of sorcery as making a man run away and the like ;-for all this the fine is 200. (a) When one who mixes an inferior substance with a superior substance and thereby reduces the quality of the latter;-(b) one who pierces a gem which cannot be pierced, or (c) even the gem that can be pierced, if he pierces in a wrong place; for each of them the fine is 250. When e.g. the Shūdra makes a living by the occupation of the Kşattriya, -his punishment is that he should have all his property confiscated and then banished. Yājñavalkya (2.303) [713] 'If a Shüdra makes a living by representing himself as a Brāhmana, he should be fined 800.' That is, one who makes a living by disguising himself through wearing the marks of the Brāhmaṇa. Manu (9.285) [714] 'One who destroys a crossing, & flag, a pole or images, shall repair the whole of it and pay a fine of 500.' 'Sankrama'-known as 'Sākama' (or Shāka) [a contrivance by which men cross over water-ways-according to Medhātithi];-flag the Flag with the insignia of the Garuda-bird, set up in honour of the Deity.- Pole'- -as * Malevolent rites ',-i.e. encompassing death by means of incantations and such other means. If any one performs such a rite, the fine shall be 200, if the death aimed at does not come about; in case the death does come about, the punishment shall be the same as in the case of Man-slaughter(Medhatithi). † Gems have been classed as 'good', 'bad' and 'indifferent'; the punishment therefore shall be regulated in accordance with the class to which the gem in question may belong. In the case of 'bad gems' the fine shall be the lowest amercement; in the case of indifferent gems', it shall be the middle amercement; and in the case of 'good gemas’, the highest amercement—(Medhātithi).

·142 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI indicating the market-place, etc.—'Images'—of Deities (crude images-- according to Vivādaratnākara, p. 364];if one breaks any one of these, he should be fined 500. Katyāyana- [715] 'One who steals, breaks or burns the image of deities,-or demolishes a temple,--should suffer the first amercement.' Vişnu (5.174)— [716] 'One who sells uneatable food or such things as should not be sold, or breaks the image of a deity-should suffer the highest amercement.' In this connection, the higher or lower amount of fine is to be imposed in accordance with the superior or inferior quality of the image concerned. Shankha- [717] 'For the demolition of images, gardens, wells, bridges, flags, dykes, or drinking pits,--the offender should be made to rebuild and repair them, and also to pay a fine of 800.' “Nipāna', 'Drinking Pit-is the place set up near wells for cattle to drink water from.-When any one of these seven things is demolished the man who demolishes them should repair them and bring them up to the same condition as before; and he shall also pay a fine of 800 Panas.* In continuation of the word—'he should be put to death'-says Vişnu- [718] "Those who break dykes.' This applies to the case of very extensive dykes and dams. In continuation of the word-cutting off of the limbs of the body',- says Sharkham [719] 'For breaking a tank or a well or a pond or a drinking pit,-for spoiling a path or a liquid substance,--and for spoiling a girl who is not a slave by giving her to a slave'. 'Spoiling of the path'-by spreading thorns and sharp nails; -'spoiling of a liquid substance'-by throwing poison into it; and for spoiling a girl who is not a slave by giving her to a slave and thus reducing her status; one who does this there should be death or the cutting off of a limb. Yājňavalkya (2.278-279) [720] 'A woman who has administered poison, or set fire, -or has killed a man, or has broken a dam-shall have a piece of stone tied round her neck and drowned in water;--provided she is not with child.' That is, & woman who has administered poison,or has set fire to a house, or has killed a man, or has broken a dam,-if she is not with child, she shall have stone tied round her neck and drowned in water. Again- [721] 'A woman who is very unchaste,-one who has killed her husband or elder or child,-shall have her ears, hands and nose cut off and then gored to death by bulls '--(Yajňavalkya 2.278-279). The woman who is uncommonly unchaste, who has encompassed the death of her husband or father and other elders or her own child, should first have her ears, hands and nose cut off, and then gored to death by bulls. * This fine of 800 is to be imposed in the case of images of superior quality; for ordinary images the fine shall be 500 (see Text No. 714 above).

·'SĀHASA'-ACTS OF VIOLENCE-CRIMES 143 Again- [722] Those who set fire to fields, houses, forests, pasture-lands or threshing yards, and one who has intercourse with the King's wife,- shall be burnt in burning mats-(Yājñavalkya 2.282). That is, one who sets fire to any of the six things mentioned—Fields and the rest,--as also one who has intercourse with the King's wife-should be burnt in burning reeds.* Manu (9.289) [723] 'One who demolishes the wall, or fills up the ditch, or breaks up the gates, shall be instantly killed.' † The King shall immediately kill the man who has demolished the wall protecting the city, or the protective ditch surrounding it, or the gateway (in the walls). [724] "Those who rob the King's Treasury, those who are disaffected towards him,g and those who conspire with his enemies ---the King shall strike with various forms of punishment.' Yājňavalkya (?) [725] 'One deserving death may pay a fine of a hundred Suvarnas; one deserving the cutting off of limbs may pay a fine of half that amount; and one deserving banishment, a fine of 25.' That is, when a Brāhmana has committed a crime for which the penalty prescribed is death, he should instead) be fined 100 Suvarnas; and so on. Again- [726] 'Those wicked-minded officials who receive bribes from men on business should have their entire property confiscated and be banished' -(Manu, 7.124). [727] 'If the King's officers, gloaming in the fire of wealth, hamper the business of suitors,--the King should confiscate their entire property (Manu 9.231). *Kāryibhyah', 'men on business?,-i.e. men who have cases in the Court.-Kāryiņām', 'Suitors'-i.e. Plaintiffs and Defendants. Yājñavalkya (?)- [728] 'Through spies, the King shall find out all about the doings of the State-officials, and shall honour the honest and strike the dishonest among them. [729] 'Those found to be addicted to bribery, he shall dispossess of all belongings and banish. He shall always make Vedic Scholars to live in his kingdom, honouring them with gifts and proper respect.' * "Fields_i.e. those with ripe coms standing ;-Forests or gardens (Mitäksarā). † Another reading for promāpayēt’, kill, is 'vivāsayēt', banish. The right reading "nagarādyashrayasya prāchirasya parikhāyāḥ' is supplied by Ma. $ Disaffected'-.g. those who obstruct the King's efforts to import rare articles, such as the coal-black horse, which is rare for Easterners, or the elephant, which is rare for Northerners; or try to turn his friends into enemies, and so forth. The punishment need not be Death in all these cases—(Medhātithi).

·144 VIVĀDACHINTĀMA NI Again- [730] 'An officer who imprisons a man who (being guiltless) should not be imprisoned, or lets go a guilty person, or lets go an accused person without trial, shall suffer the highest amercement'-(Yājñavalkya 2.243). If an officer imprisons a person who has been found to be guiltless and therefore not to be imprisoned,-or lets go a guilty person who should be imprisoned, --or either imprisons or lets go a man who has not been tried, and in regard to whom it has not been decided whether he is guiltless or guilty,-he should be fined 1,000 Panas. * Visnu [731] 'If an officer remits the fine of a guilty person, he should be made to pay double the amount of the fine; so also the wicked officer who punishes men who do not deserve punishment.' If the man in charge of criminal work acquits the guilty, and does not punish him,-or punishes the guiltless who should not be punished,-he should be fined double the amount of the fine concerned. Katyāyana [732] 'Those who are addicted to sports reserved for the King, -or make a living by having recourse to the King's functions, or talk ill of the King, should be put to death.' [733] 'Those who imitate the King, -or are too much addicted to amusements, -or lovy extortionate demands or misappropriate the royal dues,- should suffer various forms of death." That is, (a) those who, without the permission of the King, dress like him,—(6) who are addicted to witness dancing and other amusements, to the detriment of State-business,—those who realise from the people an extortionate amount of royal dues, far above the normal, or those who steal the King's wealth all these should be put to death in various ways. In continuation of the term 'should be put to death', Vişnu says- [734] Those who, not belonging to the royal family, aspire to the kingdom.' Akulināh-born in a family to which the King does not belong. Yājñavalkya (2.294) [735] 'If one enters in a Royal Warrant something more or less (than what has been ordered by the King), or if one lets go an adulterer or a thief,-he should suffer the highest amercement.' 'Royal Warrant',--to the effect that 'so much is to be given' or 'so much is to be realised' and so forth. Shankha [736] 'If one forges a royal warrant, or disobeys a royal command, makes use of false cales, weights and measures, he should suffer death or the cutting off of a limb.' (a) One who gives out as a royal command what the King has not commanded,-(6) one who acts against the King's orders, (c) one who OI * This explanation is in accordance with Aparārka; according to the Mitākşarā, there are only two offences mentioned here (1) imprisoning the guiltless, and (2) letting go the accused without trial.-In either case, the Mitākşarā adds the qualifying clause, 'if done without the King's orders'.

·SĀHASA '-ACTS OF TIOLENCE- CRIMES 145 deals with false scales and false weights-like the Seer, etc.-he should be put to death or a limb should be cut off. This option has been prescribed in view of the varying degrees of the seriousness of the offence. With reference to a very trivial offence of this kind, Kātyāyana says [737] 'If a man makes use of false weights and measures, or of false coins, he should suffer the highest amercement.' Highest'-i.e. 1,000 Paņas. Manu (9.232) [738] 'Forgers of royal edicts, those who bring false charges against the State, slayers of infants and Brāhmaṇas, and those serving luis enemies the King shall put to death.' 'Edict' here stands for the orders of the King.--'Prakrti', 'State', stands for the Ministers; those who bring false charges against them, attributing to them faults that have no existence.*_'Those serving his enemies', -i.e. those who serve people inimical to the King.-All these the King shall put to death. Vişnum [739] 'Master, Minister, Ally, Treasury, People, Fort and Army constitute the State; those who vitiate these should be put to death.' The term 'danda' in this text stands for the Army.--The State consists of the seven factors here enumerated. If any one vitiates brings false charges against any one of these, he should be put to death. Yājňavalkya (2.277) [740] 'For striking a man with a weapon, and for causing abortion,-the punishment is the highest amercement; the highest or the lowest amercement for the killing of a man or woman.' For merely striking a man with a weapon,--and for causing abortion in a woman other than the Brāhmaṇa, the fine is 1,000 Panas. 'Highest or lowest'—the option is in view of the high or low qualities of the person killed. ays Ushanas [741] 'For causing abortion by means of labour and exertion, the lowest amercement; for causing it by means of medicines, the middle amercement; and for causing it by striking, the highest amercement.' “Pariklesha is causing over-exertion;-'by medicine-by administering medicines;-or by 'striking ,-if one brings about abortion, his punishment shall be the lowest, the middle and the highest amercements, respectively. * Medhātithi explains prakrtīnām düşakān' as 'sowers of disaffection among the people'. † Whether it is to be 'highest' or 'lowest' shall depend upon the character of the person killed—(Mitākşarā);—it is to be 'highest' for killing a man and 'lowest? for killing a woman (Aparārka). 'Causing abortion --This refers to cases other than those of the slave-girl or the Brahmana woman, for which two cases, other penalties have been laid down: in the case of the pregnant slave-girl the penalty is a fine of 100 Paņas, and in that of the pregnant Brāhmana woman, the punishment is the same as that for killing a Brāhmana(Mitäkşarā). IO ·146 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI [742] 'Crime has been declared to be of fire kinds; of these, murder has been regarded as the worst; those who have committed it should not be punished with a fine, they should be put to death '-(Brhaspati 22.29). Those who commit it'i.e. those who commit murder. In regard to murder also, the same authority makes the following distinction [743] "There are open murderers and secret murderers; in the case of both, the King shall avoid downright execution and put them to death by means of tortures of various kinds.' 'Samyag-vadha'-beheading straight-off.—The men should be deprived of life by means of several kinds of torture. Katyāyana also- [744] 'In the case of murder, one who commits it should be put to an abnormal form of death.' And again [745] 'Either for the sake of friendship, or for the sake of making money. the King who desires the good of his people should never let go the criminals, who are a source of danger to all living beings. If a King, through greed or fear, omit to strike the evil-doers, his kingdom shall be ruined and he himself shall fall off from kingship.' [746] 'That man is a criminal who, through anger or some such cause, kills others by means of imprisonment, fire, poison or weapons.' Baudhāyana- [747] 'For killing a Brāhmana, the Kşattriya and others shall be put to death, after their entire property has been confiscated. Among the Ksattriya and other castes, for killing one of the same or a lower caste, the penalty imposed shall be in accordance with the strength and capacity of the murderer.-If a Brāhmana kills a Kşattriya he shall surrender to the King a thousand cows and a bull; if he has killed him in revenge, he shall pay fine of 100. If he kills a Vaishya, he shall surrender a hundred COWS; if a Shūdra, ten cows; -a bul being given in every case. The same for killing a woman or a cow, except when the woman killed was in her For killing a milch cow and a calf, one should perform the Chändrāyana Penance. For killing a woman in her courses, the punishment is the same as that for killing a Kşattriya. For killing a Bhāsa, Hamsa, Barhi, Chakravāka, Balākā, Kāka, Ulūka, Manduka, Nakula, Bhērika and Babhruithe penalty is the same as that for killing a Shūdra.' If a man belonging to the Kşattriya or the Vaishya or the Shūdra caste kills a Brāhmana, -he shall have all his property confiscated and then killed.--"Tēşām'-i.e. those same, belonging to the Kşattriya and other castes, -Tulya'-of the same caste; “apakrışta'-of a lower caste.-— Yathashakti —in accordance with his strength. -- Yathābalam'—according to his capacity to pay, the penalty may be the highest, middle or lowest amercement. -The particle cha' is meant to indicate that corporal punishment may be inflicted.---'Kşattriya etc.'-If a Brāhmaṇa kills a Kşattriya, he should surrender a thousand cows with a bull; if he kills a Vaishya, a hundred cows courses. IOB ·SĀHASA'-ACTS OF VIOLENCE-CRIDIES 147 with a hull; if he kills a Shüdra, ten cows with a bull.--This last penalty for killing a Shüdra is also to be inflicted for killing a woman other than one in her courses, and also for killing a cow other than the milch cow and the calf.— Ātrêyī’ is woman in her courses; and for killing her, the punishment is the same as that for killiug a Kşattriya.-'Bhērika' is what is known as 'Chhuchchhundari' (Musk-rat).--Babhrü' is the ordinary mongoose; Nakula' is the aquatic mongoose (the Beaver).—The phrase and others' is meant to include other animals. Brhaspati- [748] 'When several persons, in rage, strike a single man, the responsibility for his death rests upon one who struck the fatal blow, and it is he who has been declared to be the murderer; among these, the man who struck the fatal blow shall be made to pay the fine prescribed ;--the first striker and his associates shall suffer half of that penalty;-the exact punishment shall be determined after carefully considering the seriousness or otherwise of the wound, the vital character of the place wounded, the strength (of the men) and the repetition of the blows, as indicated by the marks.' The penalty prescribed for 'murder shall be inflicted upon the man who struck the fatal blow; only half of it each, upon the first striker and his associates.--For the purpose of determining who struck the fatal blow. there should be examination of the seriousness of the wound, etc. etc.; that is, the grievousness or simplicity of the wound, the 'strength of the men,-as shown by their proximity or otherwise to the part of the body wounded, and also the repetition of the blows. Nārada (14.9) [749] "This gradation of punishments has been ordained for all men without distinction, with the exception of corporal punishment for the Brāhmana; a Brāhmana should not suffer corporal punishment; his punishment consists in shaving of the head, banishment from the city, branding on the forehead with the mark of his crime and parading him on an ass.' In connection with Crime and Theft, says Yama- [750] 'For the Brāhmaṇa, there is no corporal punishment. He shall be imprisoned in a well-guarded prison and given food; or he shall be tied up with a rope and compelled to work, even of the lowest kind, for a month or a fortnight, in accordance with the nature of his offence.' Yājñaralkya (2.231)- [751] 'One who gets a crime committed by another person should be made to pay double the fine prescribed for that crime.-One who incites some one to commit a crime, saying-I shall pay all that you may incur by doing this act,-shall pay four times that fine.' "One who incites, etc. etc.'—Whatever liabilities you may incur in connec. tion with this act, I shall pay, so you go and do it'-one who incites a man to commit a crime by saying this should suffer four times the penalty pre. scribed for that crime. Kātyāyana- [752] 'He who initiates the act, he who helps him, he who shows the way, he who provides shelter, he who supplies weapons and food to miscreants,- he who advises them to fight, and incites them to kill, he who overlooks the ·148 VIVÄDACHINTĀMANI act,-he who speaks of the faults of the man to be attacked, even though not employed for this purpose, he who abets the perpetrator of the crime, he who does not prevent the crime, even though capable of doing sos-all these are perpetrators of the crime and should be punished proportionately in accordance with their capacity and strength.' * Ārambha etc.:-(1) Having come to know that a certain person is going to commit a crime, if one incites and (2) helps him to do it, or (3) offers him advice that makes that act easy,—(4) one who provides the miscreant with (5) shelter, or (6) with suitable weapons, or with food,--or (7) incites him to fight for avenging a wrong, or (8) urges him to kill the wrong-doer by offering poison to him,-or (9) when some one is being attacked by criminals, if one, though himself unable to help, does not get others to help him, (10) one, who is not employed hy the King for that purpose, oppresses people, (11) who speaks of the wrongs done by the man who is going to be attacked,- (12) one who abets the perpetrator of the crime,-(13) one who, though able to do so, does not prevent the crime ;-all these thirteen persons are perpetrators of the crime concerned and should be accordingly punished in accordance with their capacity. Nārada- [753] 'If a man, having committed a crime, surrenders himself, or makes a confession in Court, his penalty shall be half of what has been prescribed. Surrenders'-to the judicial officer;-makes a confession-i.e. reports the offence committed by himself. Again- [754] 'If, however, he tries to hide his wickedness,-- even though he may continue to live thus, yet the Court-officials are not satisfied and he incurs a heavy penalty.' That is, when questioned by the trying judge, the man denies his guilt, and continues to make a living by similar acts.-then a heavy punishment should be inflicted upon him, even for a trivial offence. DETECTION OF CRIMINALS Says Yajñavalkya (2.280-281) [755] 'When some one has been killed by an unknown person, his sons and relations should be questioned regarding any quarrels that he may have had recently; his woman also, who may be loving other men, should be questioned; as to whether he had gone out after a woman or in search of wealth or livelihood; in whose company he had gone out and so on. Questions should also be put gently to persons found near the scene of the crime.' ' Found near etc.'—i.e. near the place where the murder took place. [756] 'In a case where the dead body has been found, but the murderer cannot be discovered, the King shall trace him by drawing inferences from the dead man's former enmities. His immediate neighbours and their neighbours, as well as his friends and relations shall be questioned by the King's officers with persuasion and other methods.—The guilty ·'SAHASA'-ACTS OF VIOLENCE-CRIMES 149 person may be found out from his association with bad men, from signs of the crime on him, and from the possession of stolen property. Such has been the process of detection of murderers and thieves laid down. If a man is arrested on suspicion, and he does not confess his guilt, he shall clear himself ly an ordeal. Such is the law in connection with all disputes '-(Brhaspati 22.3+38).* Guilt' of having committed the murder. In regard to the case where the accused does not admit the guilt, says Vyāsa- [757] Having found out the murderer the King shall put him to death, along with his associates and relations, by various painful methods of killing.' Byhaspati [758] When the accused has cleared himself by ordeals, he should be acquitted; if not cleared, he should be put to death.-By punishments and favours the King augments his fame and righteousness.' That is, by 'Punishment of the wicked, and 'Farours' bestowed on the good,--the King's fame and righteousness become augmented. * Arthashāstra (4.7) has a long note on this subject of Post-mortem Investigation:- In cases of sudden death, the dead body shall be smeared with oil, then examined. If it is found that urine and faoces have come out, the stomach and the skin are full of wind, the hands and feet swollen, the eyes open, the neck bearing marks of violence, --it should be taken as a case of strangulation. If the arms and legs are contracted and drawn in, it should be taken as a case of death by hanging. If the hands, feet and abdomen are swollen, the eyes sunk, the navel protruding, it should be regarded as a case of death by impalement. If the arms and eyes are protruding, the tongue lying between the teeth, the stomach swollen, it should be regarded as a case of death by drowning.--If the body is smeared with blood, the limbs broken and pierced, it is & case of death brought about by sticks and stones.--If the body is broken and torn, it is a case of death by being thrown down from a high place. If the hands, feet, teeth and nails are black,—the flesh, hair and skin hanging loosely, and froth coming out of the mouth, it is a case of death by poisoning.- If with these marks, a bleeding puncture is found, it is a case of snake-bite. If the clothes and limbs are thrown about hither and thither, it is death by intoxicating drugs.- In case of death by poisoning, the remnant of food eaten by the man should be examined by means of milk. If a piece of the man's heart, thrown into fire, make a chit-chit sound, and assume the colours of the rainbow, it should be regarded as a clear case of poisoning. The dead man's servants should be examined and it should be found out if any of them had been recently abused or beaten by him; also his wife, who may have been unhappy or in love with some other man; also such relatives of his as might have been expecting to inherit his property or woman.-In cases of suicide, it should be found out what wrong the dead man had recently suffered.--The causes of anger leading to death are some wrong done through one's wife or property, rivalry, enmity, trade and the eighteen Heads of Dispute.If a man has killed himself, or got himself killed by cthers, or he has been killed by thieves or by other enemies,--the death shall be investigated through people who were near the dead man; the man who had called him, he with whom he was seated, he with whom he had started or with whom he had come to the place where he met his death, every one of these should be closely questioned. Those who were near the dead man should be asked-By whom was he brought here ? Who was the armed person whom you saw hiding ?-If the dead man has left no relations, then those persons should be questioned who may be found to be using the clothes and ornaments that were found on the dead body.

·CHAPTER XV Adultery Says Vyāsa- [759] 'Adultery has been classed under three degrees-first, second and highest; and definitions have been provided of each of them separately. [760] 'When a man meets a woman in a solitary place, or at some improper place or time and converses with her, casting amorous glances and smiles at her, it is Adultery of the First Degree.' Brhaspati (23.6) [761] Casting amorous glances at a woman, smiling at her, sending messengers to her, touching her ornaments or clothes,--these constitute Adultery of the First Degree.' Nārada [762] 'If a man sits, converses or flirts with a woman at an improper time and place,-these constitute the three steps to Adultery.-When a man and a woman meet each other at the confluence of rivers, or at a place of pilgrimage, or in a garden, or in a forest,--this also has been declared to be Adultery.--Sending of messengers or letters, or committing other improprieties constitute Adultery of the First Degree.' The term 'Sangrahana' connotes that act by which it is indicated that the heart of the man is affected with love for the woman; e.g. conversation and other forms of association with other's women, which cannot be attributed to any other cause; as it is only from such act and word that it is inferred that the two are in love with each other. The qualification which cannot be attributed to any other cause '-implies that the name 'Adultery cannot apply to such conversation, etc. as may have been entered into through ignorance, or through simplicity, or through over-anxiety, or with some other intention. To this same effect there is the following text of Manu (8.360) [763] 'Mendicants, Bards, Persons initiated for a Rite and Craftsmen may converse with women, unchecked.' 'Adēshē', 'improper places in Text No. 762)—e.g. in a solitary place.-- Akälē' (Text 762), 'wrong time',-.g. at night.—'Sthāna'-sitting.-'Āmoda', 'Airtation';-joking and such other acts bring the two too close together, and from which it is inferred that their minds have deviated from the right path.--This constitutes Adultery of the First Degree. This is the upshot of the whole definition, With reference to Adultery of the Second Degree, says Brhaspati (23.7)- [764] 'Sending perfumes, garlands, fruits, wines, food or clothes, and conversing with her in secret, constitute Adultery of the Second Degree.' [765] 'Sending perfumes and garlands, incense, ornaments and clothes, also tempting with foods and drinks, constitute Adultery of the Second Degree (Vyāsa, according to Vivādaratnākara, p. 380). G ·ADULTERY 151 Sambhāşana' here stands for conversation of a much closer kind than the one mentioned before (under Text 762).—Perfumes, etc. etc.-All this involves expenditure of money, hence it is regarded as more serious. In regard to Adultery of the Highest Degree, says Brhaspati (23.8) [766] “Sitting on the same bed, dallying, kissing and embracing -all this has been declared by the learned to constitute Adultery of the Highest Degree.' And Vyāsa- [767] 'When a man and a woman lean upon each other on the same bed or seat in a solitary place, catching hold of each other's hair,---this should be regarded as Adultery of the Highest Degree.' [768] Offering assistance, flirting, touching of ornaments and clothes, sitting on the same bed,--all this has been declared to be Adultery.-If a man touches a woman in an improper place, and the woman, on being so touched, condones it all this, when done with mutual consent, has been declared to be Adultery'-(lanu 8.357-358). Offering assistance--doing some helpful service. The reading in some places for 'upakāra' is 'upachāra', which means 'sending of betel-leaves, etc.' "Flirtation is dalliance.- 'Adultery'-i.e. of the Highest Degree.--'Improper place'-e.s. the Breasts. Vārada [769] 'If through arrogance or stupidity, a man were to say vauntingly, "I have enjoyed her before"-this would be Adultery.' [770] 'If one catches hold of the hand or the hair or the clothes of a harlot, or say to her “Stay, stay please”, -all this would be Adultery.' The 'harlot' has been mentioned only by way of an illustration; what is meant is that if a man behaved in the stated manner towards any woman except his own wife, it would be Adultery. Byhaspati (23.9) [771] "For the three degrees of Adultery, the lowest, middle and highest penalties shall be inflicted; the fines may be heavier in the case of the culprit being specially wealthy.' That is, in connection with the three degrees of Adultery, the lowest, middle and highest amercements respectively shall be the penalty inflicted; and there may be heavier fines in the case of wealthy offenders. Manu (8.354) [772] 'A man who engages in secret conversation with another man's wife, and if he has been previously accused of similar offence,-should suffer the first amercement.' That is, if a man has previously been accused of intimacy with a woman,- and yet he engages, in secret, in conversation with her, beyond the proper limits,-he should be punished with the first amercement. Again [773] 'If, however, he is one who has not been previously accused, and converses with her for some good reason,-he does not incur any guilt; as there is no transgression on his part :-(Manu 8.355).

·152 VIVÄDACHINTĀMANI 7 That is, in the case of a man who has not been previously accused, if he, for some good reason, engages with her in conversation, even beyond proper limitations, there is nothing wrong in this. But even for the man not previously accused, if he engages in conversa - tion with another's wife in a solitary place, he does incur gult;—as declared by the same authority. [774] 'If a man converses with another's wife at a watering place, or in a forest, or in a house, or at the confluence of rivers,-he incurs the guilt of Adultery -(Alanu 8.356). Says Manu (8.361)- [775] 'One should not converse with the wives of other men, when forbidden; if, on being forbidden, he does converse, he should be fined one Suvarna.' ' Forbidden'-i.e. told by her husband and other relatives not to talk to her. Yajñavalkya (2.285)-- [776] 'If on being forbidden to converse with a man, the woman converse with him, she is to be fined 100, and the man 200. If both of them have been forbidden, and yet keep on their conversation, both should be punished as for Adultery.' The woman has been forbidden to talk to a certain man, and yet if she talks to him, she should be fined 100 Panas;mif it is the man who has been forbidden, and yet he goes on conversing with her, he should be fined 200 Panas;-if both have been forbidden, and yet they carry on their conversation, then each of the two should suffer the first amercement. Manu (8.362-363) [777] 'If one carries on secret conversations with the wives of dancers, etc., or with slave-girls attached to a single master, or with female mendicants, he should be made to pay a small fine.' This is,—with one's own slave-girl who is attached to a single man, or with a female ascetic,-if one converses in secret, he should be made to pay a fine less than a Suvdrņa. Vişnu [778] 'By whatever limb a man misbehaves, that limb should be cut off; or a fine of eight and thousand imposed; except in the case of a Brāhmana who is immune from punishment.' That is, the Brāhmaṇa is immune from corporal punishment. Manu (8.352) [779] 'Those three classes of men who are addicted to intercourse with the wives of other men, the King shall banish after branding them with terror-inspiring punishments. Three classes of men'-i.e. the three non-Brāhmaṇa castes.- Terror inspiring '--such as the cutting off of Ear, Nose and so forth.* * What is meant is that when the King has found out that a certain man is addicted to the vice of associating with other men's wives, he should brand him by cutting off his ears or nose, and then banish him. This refers to repeated. acts (Medhātithi).

·ADULTERY 153 In regard to cases of Adultery in the inverse order, says Janu (8.359)- [780] ‘In cases of Adultery, the non-Brāhmaṇa deserves the death-penalty.' Matsya-Purana, [781] 'A man who brings about the meeting (between the man and the woman),--and he who provides the place for their meeting-should be punished like the Adulterer himself.' The 'Sanchāraka'-is the person who brings them together, and the * Avakāshada' is one who provides the place of meeting. That all this penalty does not apply to intercourse with women who are not the wives of any particular persons, has been declared by Alanu (8.362)- [782] "This rule does not apply to the case of the wives of dancers and singers; nor to those who make a living by their wives; as these men themselves bedeck their wives and secretly bring about their meeting with other men.' *Chāraṇa' is the Dancer. According to the assertion that 'the Wife and the Son are one's own body, the term'ātman' in the compound'ātmopajivişu') stands for the wife; hence the dancer and others are so called because they make a living through their wives; in fact they themselves deck out their wives and bring them into contact with other men;-hence intercourse with these does not involve punishment for the offence of ' Adultery'; the penalty for 'intercourse remains in this case also; and this will be described under the section dealing with the Bandhakī (Harlot, Courtesan). Vārada- [783] 'Intercourse with a protected woman in another man's house has been regarded as culpable Adultery; not so when the woman has come to the man's house and made advances to him.' In the case of a woman kept by another man, intercourse with her is culpable, and renders the man punishable only if it is another man's house. In case, however, the woman of her own will comes to the man's house and lends herself open to intercourse, even that culpability ceases. Vişnu- [784] 'The wife of a man who has forsaken her without fault, the wife of one who is impotent, or incapable,--if one has intercourse with such a woman even at her own home, if she is willing, he is not liable to punishment.' In the case of the wife who has been forsaken by her husband, or of one whose husband is impotent, or incapacitated,—if she is willing, and the man meets her at her own house, there is to be no punishment. SEXUAL INTERCOURSERAPE Says Manu (8.364) [785] 'If a man violates an unwilling maiden, he deserves immediate death; if he violates a willing one, and is of the same status, he shall not suffer death.' If a man of the same caste has intercourse with an unwilling maiden he should be killed, -not when she has been willing.

·154 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI [786] 'An inferior man, having recourse to a superior maiden, should be put to death; he who has recourse to a maiden of equal status shall pay the nuptial fee, if her father so wishes:-(Manu 8.366). That is, if a man of lower caste has intercourse with a maiden-Willing or unwilling,-he should be put to death; if he has intercourse with her with her own and her father's consent, and he is of the same caste, he should be made to pay the nuptial fee to the father; but having received the nuptial fee paid, she should be married to the same man. This is what has been thus declared by Nārada- [787] ‘There is nothing wrong in a man having recourse to a willing maiden of the same caste as himself; but he has to marry her after having adorned her and honoured her.' Shankham [788] 'If the maiden is of the same status as the man, he should pay her the nuptial fee, present her with ornaments and a double dowry, and then marry her.' That is, if a man has had intercourse with a maiden of the same status as himself, he should give her double the amounts of (a) nuptial fee, (b) ornaments and (c) dowry; and then marry her. [789] 'If a man wantonly defiles a maiden through sheer audacity, his two fingers should be instantly clipped off; and he should also be fined 600.' That is, if a man approaches an unwilling maiden of the same caste and, forcibly thrusting his fingers into her, defiles her,-his two fingers shall be cut off; and he shall also be fined 600.† [790] 'A man of equal status defiling a willing maiden shall not suffer amputation of the fingers; he shall be made to pay a fine of 200, in order to prevent its repetition.' One who defiles a willing maiden by thrusting his fingers into her. "Of equal status' of the same caste. Nārada—[These texts are really from Manu 8.365 and 369) * According to Medhātithi and Vivādaratnākara (8.402) this refers to cases where there has been consent on the part of the maiden.-'If the Father wishes - In case the Father does not consent to receive it, the fee shall be paid to the King as fine, and the maiden may be given to the lover, or if she has ceased to love him, to some one else. If the man has ceased to love the girl, he shall be compelled to marry her-(Medhatithi). † Even when the maiden may have been willing, if her parents and relatives are close by and their presence is not heeded by the man, who, through sheer audacity and relying upon the girl's love for himself-defiles her, then either his fingers shall be cut off, or he shall be fined 600.--According to some people, what is meant is that if a man defiles a maiden of a low caste, he shall not suffer death, only his fingers shall be cut off-(Medhātithi). $ The preceding text refers to a case where the act has been audacious; the present text refers to a case where it has been done secretly, by stealth-Or the meaning may be as follows-If a maiden happen to be in love with a certain man, and having had intercourse with him has lost her virginity,then, since the girl was willing, the man, for defiling her, shall only pay a fine of 200.- Or again, the defiling' meant here may be taken to stand for the touching of the hand or some other part of the body, with the motive that if people saw him touching her, they would think that she loved him and hence no one else would seek her hand and she would, of necessity, be married to himself—(Medhätithi).

·ADULTERY 155 [791] 'If a maiden approaches a superior man she shall not be made to pay a fine; if, however, she courts an inferior man, she shall be kept confined in the house.' * [792] 'If a maiden defiles another maiden, her fine shall be 200; she shall also pay the double of her nuptial fee † and shall also receive ten lashes.' 'Kuryāt- defiles her by thrusting fingers into her.—Shiphā'-lashes with ropes or tree-shoots and such things. [793] 'If a woman defiles a maiden, she shall be immediately shaven off; or shall suffer the amputation of her two fingers, and shall also be paraded on an ass.' That is, if a woman defiles a maiden by thrusting her fingers into her, she shall have her head immediately sliaven off; if she repeat the act, her two fingers shall be cut off and she shall be paraded on an ass through the public streets. Yājñavalkya (2.287-288) [794] 'If a man carries away an adorned maiden of the same caste, he shall suffer the highest amercement; if he takes her away unadorned, he shall suffer the lowest amercement. If the maiden is of a superior caste, he shall suffer death.' [795] 'In the case of willing maidens of inferior caste, there is no offence; in other cases, punishment should be inflicted. For defiling a maiden of inferior caste, the man's hand shall be cut off; if the maiden of superior caste, he shall suffer death.' Adorned'-i.e. promised in marriage to another man.. Uttamam' the highest amercement.-Anyatha'if she is unadorned, then 'adhaman -i.e. the lowest amercement.-If it is in the inverse order,-i.e. the maiden is of superior caste,then the man of the lower caste should suffer death.- 'Anyatha'-i.e. if the maiden has been unwilling. Again- [796] 'If a woman, proud of her relations and her qualities, passes over her husband, the King shall have her devoured by dogs in a frequented place.' That is, through pride of her wealth, brothers and her beauty and other qualities, if a woman disregards her husband and misbehaves with other men, her the King shall have devoured by dogs in the presence of people. [797] 'The offending male shall be made to lie down upon a red-hot ironbedstead; they shall put wooden logs over him so that the sinner may be burnt to ashes'—(Alanu 8.371-372). That is, the man with whom the said woman has misbehaved, and who has had recourse to her through pride of power,-the King shall make to lie down upon a heated bed of iron and burn him alive; and the men in charge 6 $ * Approaches'-has intercourse with.—'Courts 'tries to have intercourse with-(Medhätithi). † 'Nuptial Fee'-the exact amount shall depend upon the girl's beauty, fortune and other qualities.(Medhatithi). "Double'-of 200 (the said fine); i.e. 400 will go towards the Nuptial Fee Vivādaratnākara p. 403).

·156 VIVÄDACHINTĀMANI of killing him should throw upon him wooden sticks, sufficient to burn him to ashes. Manu (8.385) [798] "The Brāhmaṇa, approaching an unprotected Kşattriya or Vaishya or Shüdra woman, should be fined 500; and 1,000 for approaching a woman of the lowest order.' Antyaja' is the washerman, the cobbler and the like. [799] 'If a man convicted of and punished for Adultery with a woman commits the same offence after a year, his fine shall be double.--The same also in the case of intercourse with a Vrātyă (Apostate) woman, or with a Chandāla woman'-(Manu 8.373). When a man has been convicted of Adultery,--if, after a year, he is convicted of the same offence with the same woman, his fine shall be double the amount of his former fine. "With a Vrītyā woman, etc. etc.'-'Vrātyä' is born of a Vrátya father; and the Vrātya is one who has fallen off from righteous conduct (an Apostate); according to the explanation provided by Hārīta, that-'the Vrätya is one who has given up all duties and righteousness'. According to Halāyudha however, the Drătyā girl is one who has remained unmarried beyond the marriageable age.—The penalty for intercourse with a Vrätyā girl or a Chandāla girl is a fine of 1,000 Panas.--This has to be doubled if the act is repeated. The implication of this is that in the case of all offences, repetition involves double the penalty of the first offence. † Says Yājñavalkya (2.293)- [800] 'If one has recourse to a Chāņdāla woman, he should be branded with an ugly mark and banished;-for a similar offence, the Shüdra shall be branded only.I-If a Chandāla has recourse to a noble woman, he should suffer death.' ‘Ankabandha', 'ugly mark', is the mark in the shape of a headless person; with this mark should the man of one of the three higher castes be branded and then banished. 'The Shūdra shall be branded only';—what this 'only' precludes is Banishment only; hence this is not incompatible with the declaration that for having intercourse with a Chāņdāla woman, the Shūdra shall suffer death. * According to Medhătithi, the Chāņdāla and the rest. The law in this matter has been thus summed up by Medhātithi :-(a) For the Brāhmaṇa having intercourse with a protected woman of any of the four castes, the fine shall be 1,000,- in addition to this, for having intercourse with the wife of & Vedic Scholar, there shall be both Banishment and Branding; while in other cases, there shall be Banishment only :-(6) for intercourse with an unprotected woman, the fine shall be 500, in addition to Branding and Banishment (c) for the Non- Brāhmaṇa, the penalty is death, for approaching any protected woman;(d) for approaching a willing woman, he shall be fined 1,000 and also be branded and banished. Though the 'unprotected' woman may be regarded as 'another man's wife' by reason of her having undergone the marriage-rites, yet, in reality, by becoming loose in character, she practically ceases to be her husband's 'wife'. † According to Medhätithr, the Vrātyā is the unchaste woman who has had intercourse with several men; or the village slave-girl who has several masters, He has rejected the explanation that the name applies to a girl who has remained unmarried too long. I The Mitāk sarā reads 'antyaḥ' or 'ankyaḥ', and explains the meaning to be that 'the Shüdra becomes an Antya, i.e. Chändāla.'

·ADULTERY 157 For the ' Antya'—i.e. the Chändāla-having recourse to a 'noble woman -i.e. a woman belonging to one of the three higher castes,--there shall be death.* JIanu (8.374)- [801] 'The Shüdra having intercourse with a twice-born woman, protected or unprotected, shall be deprived of his limb and his entire property, in the case of the unprotected woman,-and of everything, in the case of the protected woman.' If a Shüdra has intercourse with an unprotected twice-born woman, one of his limbs shall be cut off and his entire property confiscated; the one limb to be cut off in this case is the generative organ; as is clear from the following words of Gotama- [802] .For having recourse to a twice-born woman, the cutting off of the generative organ and the confiscation of entire property; if the woman is a protected woman, death shall be the further penalty.' That is to say, if the Shūdra has intercourse with a protected twice-born woman, he has to suffer all that has been just said, and in addition, death also. This is what is meant by his being deprived of everything' (Text 801). [803] 'The Vaishya shall be imprisoned for a year and then fined 1,000 Panas; the Kşattriya shall be punished with a fine of 1,000, he shall also suffer the shaving of his head with urine-dlanu 8.375). For having recourse to a protected Brāhmaṇa woman, the Vaishya shall be kept imprisoned for one year and then fined 1,000 Paņas; for a similar offence, the Kşattriya shall pay the same fine, and also have his head shaven with the urine of the ass. [804] 'If the Vaishya or the Kşattriya should have intercourse with an unprotected Brāhmaṇa woman,—the Vaishya should be fined 500 and the Kşattriya 1,000 (Manu 8.376). This is easily understood. The lighter penalty for the Vaishya is meant for associating with a Brāhmaṇa woman who is as bad as & Shüdra; in the case of other Brāhmaṇa women, his punishment shall be the same as that for the Kşattriya. [805] 'The same two, misbehaving with a protected Brāhmaṇa woman, should be punished like a Shūdra, or burnt in a fire of dry grass'-(Manu 8.377). The same two'-i.e. the Kşattriya and the Vaishya.— With a Brāhmana woman'--who is endowed with high qualities; this is what is meant; hence there is no incompatibility with the penalty of 1,000 (prescribed in Text No. 803) (which is applicable to cases of the ordinary Brāhmaṇa woman). ‘Like & Shüdra'-i.e. they should have their entire property confiscated, the penis cut off and put to death (as laid down in Text No. 801). In the event of their being burnt in a fire of dry grass,--the Vaishya shall be * The first of these rules applies to the twice-born person who has committed the Adultery and is unwilling to perform the prescribed expiatory penance; in addition to the punishment here laid down, the man should also be fined 1,000;-the 'ugly mark' is the sign of the female organ;-in case the man is prepared to perform the expiatory penance, he shall be only fined 1,000—(Mitäksarā). † For 'sahasran dandyah', the generally accepted reading in Manu's text is “sarvasvadandyaḥ', 'punishable with confiscation of his entire property'.

·158 VIVĀDACHINTĀMANI burnt up in red grass, and the Kşattriya wrapped up in reed-leaves' as laid down by Vashistha; so that they have to be wrapped up in grass and then burnt. [806] 'The Brāhmana having recourse to a protected Brāhmana by force should be fined 1,000; if he meets one who is willing, he shall be fined 500'*_(Manu 8.378). [807] 'In cases where the death-penalty is prescribed, it shall be tonsure for the Brāhmaṇa, and actual death for others.' For the Brāhmana, tonsure shall be the death-penalty'; for others, it will be actual death. [808] 'Verily the King should not put a Brāhmana to death, even though he be steeped in all sins; he should banish him from his kingdom, unharmed, along with all his property '-(Manu 8.380). This banishment is meant for cases of repetition of the offence in question. [809] "There is no sin on earth greater than the killing of a Brāhmana; hence the King should not even think of putting him to death.' This is quite clear. [810) 'If a Vaishya has recourse to a protected Kşattriya woman,-or a Kşattriya to a Vaishya woman,both these deserve the same punishment as that in the case of the unprotected Brāhmaṇa woman'-(Manu 8.382). The same punishment',-i.e. fines of 500 and 1,000 Panas respectively. -This slight penalty is meant for cases where a highly qualified Vaishya has recourse to a Kşattriya woman with no qualifications t; in other cases both are to be fined 1,000. [811] "The Brāhmaṇa, having recourse to a protected Kşattriya or a protected Vaishya woman, should be fined 1,000. A Kşattriya or a Vaishya having recourse to a Shüdra woman should be fined 1,000 1-(Manu 8.383). "Tē'--the Vaishya and the Kșattriya women. Shüdra woman'-who is protected. [812] 'In the case of the Vaishya having recourse to an unprotected Kşattriya woman, the fine shall be 500; the Kşattriya shall pay a fine of 500, or suffer tonsure with urine-(Manu 8.384). That is, if the Kşattriya has intercourse with a protected § Kşattriya woman he should have his hair wetted with urine and then shorn, or he should be fined 500. * Even though the woman may have lost her chastity, if she continues to be protected by her father, brother or other relatives, and a Brāhmana has intercourse with her by force,--he should be made to pay 1,000. If, however, the woman is still chaste and protected, the man shall pay the fine of 1,000 and shall also be branded and banished-Medhătithi). † Medhătithi's explanation is different: the heavier punishment for the Ksattriya is justified on the ground that, being entrusted with the task of protecting the people, if he takes to offending against morality, he incurs a greater sin. According to the Mitākşarā or 2.286 and the Vīramitrodaya, p. 507, this refers to cases of women other than the wife of a Teacher or of a Friend. $ The context would make the Kşattriya woman also unprotected; but the printed text and Ma both read gupta'.

·ADULTERY 159 [813] 'The Brāhmana having recourse to an unprotected Kşattriya woman or an unprotected Vaishya woman, or a Shūdra woman, should be fined 500; and 1,000 if he has recourse to a woman of the lowest order -(Manu 8.385). The Shüdra woman also is meant to be one who is unprotected.-- ‘Antyaja' is one born in the lowest order, i.e. the Chāņdāla and the rest; if a Brāhmana has intercourse with a woman of this order, his fine is to be 1,000 Paņas. OTHER MISDEMEANOURS [814] 'Neither the Mother nor the Father, nor the Wife, nor the Son, deserves to be forsaken; he who forsakes them, without their being outcasts, should be fined 600'— (Manu 8.389). The meaning is clear. [815] 'If a Sacrificer dismisses an Officiating Priest, or if the Officiating Priest forsakes the Sacrificer, each being efficient in his work and free from disqualifications—his punishment shall be 100-(Manu 8.388). This fine of 100 is to be inflicted upon one who does the forsaking in course of the performance,--without any fault of the person concerned. [816] 'If a Brāhmaṇa, through arrogance and greed, makes sanctified twiceborn persons do servile work, against their will, he shall be ined 600 by the King :-(Manu 8.412). Servile work'-ie. work generally done by slaves; e.g. washing of the feet and the like. Matsya Purāna- [817] 'A man who brings about the meeting (of the man and woman),-and he who provides the place for their meeting, should be punished like the Adulterer himself.' That is, the man who helps the woman or the man to meet, and he who provides the place of their meeting, should both be punished like the Adulterer. Byhaspati- [818] "If a man violates a woman forcibly, his entire property shall be confiscated, and having his penis and scrotum cut off, he shall be paraded on an ass.' [819] 'If a man violates a woman by fraud, his punishment shall be that his entire property shall be confiscated and having been branded with * According to Medhatithi, this refers to Brāhmaṇas only, not to all Twice-born men; the meaning is that if a Brāhmana makes his fellow-castemen do such servile work as the washing of feet, removing of offal, sweeping and the like, he should be fined 600, if he does so through greed; if he does it through malice, the fine should be heavier. 600Panas are meant-says Aparārka.

·160 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI the mark of the female organ, he shall be banished from the city' *_ (Brhaspati 23.10-11). [820] 'If a man has intercourse with a woman of equal caste, his punishment shall be the last amercement; if with a woman of an inferior caste, half of that; but if a man has intercourse with a woman of a superior caste, he should suffer death (Brhaspati 23.12). If a man has recourse to an unwilling woman by force, his entire property should be confiscated, and his penis and scrotum being cut out, he should be paraded mounted on an ass.-If one approaches a woman of equal caste, through a messenger and other means,-his punishment shall be the 'last' i.e. the highest-amercement.—Without having recourse to force or fraud, if a man invites and has intercourse with a woman of the inferior-Shūdra caste, who has had connection with another man, he shall suffer the middle amercement. If one has recourse to a woman of superior caste, in any manner, he should be put to death. Says Manu (9.233) [821] 'If a man violates his Teacher's bed, he should be branded with the sign of the female organ; if he drinks wine, with the sign of the Tavern; if he steals, with the mark of the dog's foot; if he kills a Brāhmana, with the mark of the headless man.' 'Stealing' here stands for stealing gold. Yājñavalkya- [822) 'Within one's own caste, the fine shall consist of the highest amercement; if the man has recourse to a woman of an inferior caste, the middle amercement; if with a woman of a superior caste, the man shall be put to death and the woman's Ear, etc. shall be cut off.' * Ear, etc.'-The .etc.' includes the Hair. Hence in the case of Brhaspati's text also (No. 820 above), the death of the man is to be accompanied by the cutting off of the Ears and Hair of the woman. Visnu [823} 'For intercourse with a cow, or with a woman of the lowest order, or with a woman of the highest caste,—the penalty is death.' 'Antyā', 'lowest'-untouchable. Narada [824] 'Mother, Mother's Sister, Mother-in-law, Maternal Aunt, Father's Sister, Aunt, Friend's Wife, Pupil's Wife, Sister, Sister's Friend, Daughter-in-law, Daughter, Teacher's Wife, a Sagotra Woman, a Woman Refugee, a Queen, a Female Ascetic, a Nurse belonging to the highest caste;if a man has intercourse with any one of these, he is to be regarded as a Violator of the Teacher's Bed, and for him there is no other punishment except the cutting off of his penis.' ‘Mother' here stands for the Father's wife, other than one's own mother. If one has intercourse with any one of these twenty, his penis should be cut off. * The printed text has omitted one text, and made a jumble of the two texts, which are found in Ma and also in Jolly's translation. The explanation provided is also defective in the printed text.

·ADULTERY 161 This rule is meant for cases where the woman is a 'protected' one. Yajnavalkya- [825] 'Father's Sister, Mother's Sister, Maternal Aunt, Daughter-in-law, the Teacher's Wife, one's own Daughter,—if one has recourse to any of these, he is a Violator of the Teacher's Bed; his organ should be cut off and he should be put to death; so also the woman if she had been incited with lust.' From among the six persons here mentioned, if any has been in love with the man and hence has intercourse with him, she also shall be put to death after having her organ cut off. Says Apastamba- (826] 'If a person of noble birth has intercourse with a Shüdra woman, he should be ruined.' That is, if a Brāhmana has intercourse with a Shūdra woman who has not had intercourse with any other man-he should be ruined'-.e. banished. In continuation of the word 'Shudrasya', Gotama says- [827] [If the Shūdra] has intercourse with a woman of noble birth, his penis shall be cut off, and his entire property confiscated. If the woman is a protected one, he shall be put to death also.' "Woman of noble birth'-i.e. one belonging to one of the three higher castes. Apastamba- [828] 'If a Shüdra has intercourse with a woman of noble birth, he shall be put to death, and his wife shall be confiscated.' If the Shūdra commits the said offence, the King should 'confiscate' his wife,-i.e. enslave her. The method of putting him to death has been laid down by Baudhāyana- (829] 'One should burn the Shūdra in a fire of reeds.' That is, if he has intercourse with a woman of a twice-born caste. 'Kata' is reeds. In continuation with the term 'one having intercourse with a Brāhmana woman', says Yama- (830] "The King shall put the Shüdra to death on a heated iron-bedstead; and he should consume the sinner on it by means of wood-logs, leaves and grasses.' And Harita (831) 'If a man violates the bed of a superior person, the King shall have him bound up and devoured by dogs.' 'Superior person'-i.e. one belonging to a higher caste. Violates the bed'-i.e. has intercourse with his wife. Says Gotama [832] 'If a woman has intercourse with a man of inferior caste, the King shall have her devoured by dogs.' And Vashistha [833] "If a Shüdra has recourse to a Brāhmaṇa woman, he should be wrapped up in straw and thrown into fire; and the woman's head should be II ·162 VIVÄDACHINTĀMAŅI shaved, and sprinkled with butter and she should be paraded naked on the public road on an ass; it is believed that in this way she becomes purified.-If a Vaishya has recourse to a Brāhmana woman, he should be wrapped up in reed-leaves and thrown into fire; and the woman's head shall be shaven and sprinkled with butter and she should be paraded naked on the public road on an ass. It is believed that thus she becomes purified. If a Kşattriya has recourse with a Brāhmaṇa woman, he should be wrapped up in reed-leaves and thrown into fire; and the woman should have her head shaven and sprinkled with butter, she should be paraded naked on the public road on an ass. It is believed that thus she becomes purified. Similarly when a Vaishya has intercourse with a Kşattriya woman; or a Shūdra with a Vaishya or Kşattriya woman.' 'Mahāpatha' is public road. Yamam [834] 'If a Brāhmaṇa woman, maddened with infatuation, has recourse to a Shūdra, the King should have her devoured by dogs, at a place occupied by executioners. If a Brāhmaṇa woman has recourse to a Kşattriya or a Vaishya, her head shall be shaven and she shall be paraded on an ass. "Occupied by executioners',-i.e. of men who are in charge of slaughteringplaces. Says Bphaspati- [835] 'When a woman comes to a man's house, and having excited his concupiscence by touching him and such other means, makes advances to him,mit is the woman that should be punished; the penalty of the man being only half of it; the nose, ears and lips of the woman shall be cut off, and having been paraded in the streets, she shall be thrown into water; or she may be devoured by dogs in a crowded place.' In continuation of the term 'should put to death', Vişnu says- [836] "The woman whose husband is impotent, who has never had intercourse with her husband, and who has broken her faith with him.' All these circumstances taken together constitute an offence that render the woman liable to the death-penalty. > With reference to monetary fines, says Kātyāyana- [837] 'Women who are not independent should not be arrested; it is the man who is at fault; she should be chastised by her own guardian; and the King shall make her over to her guardian.' *Arrested'-for being punished. But the King shall make her over to the man who may be her guardian; that is, the fine leviable on the woman should be realised from her guardian (husband). Katyāyana [838] "If a woman whose husband is away is caught misbehaving, she shall be kept confined till her lord comes back.' IIB ·ADULTERY 163 * Abhigraha'-is misbehaviour, adultery. In the Matsya-Purāņa, we read- (839] 'If a man forcibly violates the wife of another man in any manner, his penalty shall be death, and no blame would attach to the woman.' PENALTIES FOR PROSTITUTION Vyāsa [840] 'For intercourse with a woman kept by another man, the punishment is a fine of 50 Panas; and for forcible intercourse with a prostitute, the fine has been declared to be 10 Panas.' * Parāvaruddha' is a harlot who has been kept by one of her paramours. Yajñavalkya- [841) 'For forcible intercourse with a slave-girl, the penalty has been declared to be 10 Panas. If several men have intercourse with her without her consent, each of them shall be fined 24 Panas.' [842] 'A man having misplaced intercourse with a woman, or having, through intense passion, intercourse with a male-or with a female ascetic,-shall be fined 40 Panas.' (a) If several men have intercourse continuously with the slave-girl without her consent, each of them shall be fined 24 Panas ;--() if one makes thrusts into the woman's mouth or other wrong places ;-(c) if he has intercourse with a male, through intense passion.—Pravrajitā' is the female ascetic. Says Nārada- [843] “For having recourse to an animal, the fine is 100;-in the case of cows, the middle amercement, and the same in the case of Chāņdāla women.' * Atikrāman'-Having recourse to; he should be fined 100 Paņas. Again [844] 'A Brāhmaṇa having recourse to a cow should be fined one Suvarna.' The middle amercement' (laid down in Text 843) is for the Vaishya and the Kşattriya; because for the Shūdra, death has been previously prescribed as the penalty for the same offence [vide Vişnu's Text, No. 823 above]; and as for the Brāhmana,-'manujottama'—the subsequent line (Text 844) has laid down one Suvarna as the penalty, Again [845] 'A twice-born man having recourse to a prostitute should be fined the same amount as the fee of the prostitute.' The 'Prostitute's Fee' is 500 Panas; this same amount shall be the fine imposed upon a Brāhmaṇa having recourse to a prostitute. Says Vyāsa [846] 'If wicked men have recourse to a woman who has been previously enjoyed by several men, the woman shall be punished like a prostitute, not like another man's wife.'

·164 VIVADACHINTAMANI * Dāravat'-i.e. like the regular wife of man of family.* Nāradam [847] 'For one having recourse to a woman intercourse with whom is not right, proper punishment shall be inflicted by the King; as regards the declaration of the Expiatory Rites, that is only meant to be purificatory of the sin involved.' As for the following text- [848] 'Having committed sins, if men are punished by Kings, they become free from sins and go to heaven, in the same way as good and righteous men'-(Manu 8.319) this refers to 'punishment' in the shape of Expiation, as is clear from the context in which the text occurs; as in the Kalpataru, the text has been quoted in the section dealing with the rule that the stealer of gold should be killed with a bludgeon.* 6 * Vāchaspati Mishra has apparently read and understood this text wrongly; the reading found in other places is ... gachched yastām narādhamaḥ tasya vēshyāvadichchanti ....'; which means— if a man has recourse to a woman as described, he is to be fined as for intercourse with a prostitute, not as for intercourse with another man's wife'.--This right reading is found in Vivādaratnākara, p. 405 also. † In the Manusmrti itself, it is in the same context that this particular text It is interesting to note that Váchaspati Mishra invokes the Kalpataru, and not the original Smrti itself. occurs.

·CHAPTER XVI Duties of Men and Women Preliminary Vote "Though the appearance of Husband and Wife as Plaintiff and Respondent at the Royal Court has been forbidden, yet it is quite possible that the King may have to hear indirectly of their dereliction of duty towards each other; and in that case it becomes his duty to bring them to the path of righteousness; or otherwise, to punish them. This is the reason why this subject has been brought in as a Head of Dispute"-Vivādaratnakara (page 409). Says Yājñavalkya (1.85) [849] 'During maidenhood, the girl shall be protected by her Father, when married, by her Husband, and in old age by her Sons; in the absence of these, by her relations; and the woman has no independence anywhere." 6 Vinnä'-married ;-these-i.e. Sons. Says Bșhaspati- [850] If the Father does not give her away in time,-if the Husband does not approach her “in season", and if the Son does not supply the Mother with food, each one of these deserves to be despised and punished under the law.' Manu (9.14)- [851] They seek not for beauty; nor have they any regard for age; with or without beauty, it is the man that they long for.' Again- [852] “During girlhood the woman fears her husband; during youth she feels attracted towards him; in old age she cares not a straw for him.' (853] 'If she is allowed to go about freely and is not restrained by love, she, ultimately, becomes positively dangerous; just like a disease that is ignored.' Again [854] ‘Manu assigned to women Bed, Sitting, Ornament, Lust, Anger, Dishonesty, Malice and Bad Conduct'-(Manu 9.19). [855] 'Knowing such disposition to be innate in them, from the very creation by the Lord,--the Man should make the best effort to guard them (Manu 9.16).

·166 VIVÄDACHINTAMANI Manu (8.335) [856] ‘Be he his Father, or Teacher, or Friend, or Mother, or Wife, or Son, or Family Priest,_there is none who, straying from the path of duty, does not have to be punished.' [857] 'In a case where an ordinary man should be fined one Kārşāpaņa, the King should be fined a thousand; such is the law.' 'Kārşāpaņa'-the Copper Coin is meant. The fine imposed upon himself the King shall throw into water, according to the implication of the following declaration by Gautama- [858] 'Varuna is the lord of penalties.' Says Manu (8.139) [859] 'On the debt being admitted to be due, the Debtor shall pay a fine of 5 per cent; and in the case of denial, twice as much; such is the teaching of Manu.' (Vide above, Text No. 141.] When asked for repayment, if the Debtor denies the liability at home, but subsequently, on the suit being filed, he admits it, he should be fined 5 per cent of the total sum; and if, even on being sued, he denies his liability,- if the debt is proved by means of proofs, he should be fined at the rate of 10 per cent. In connection with Witnesses, says Manu (860] '[He who deposes falsely] through Greed, should be fined a thousand; if through embarrassment, the lowest amercement;--if through fear, two middle ones; if through friendship, four times the first; if through lust, ten times the first; if through anger, three times the next; if through ignorance, full two hundred; and if through childishness, only a hundred. -They declare these penalties for false evidence to have been declared by the wise ones, for the purpose that justice may not fail and injustice may be prevented. The righteous King shall fine and then banish the three castes giving false evidence; but the Brāhmaṇa he shall deprive of his clothes (and dwelling).' (a) If one gives false evidence, through Greed, he shall be fined 1,000;- (6) if he does so, through embarrassment, 250 Panas;-() if through fear, 1,000 Panas; (d) if through friendship, 1,000 Panas;-(e) if through lust, i.e. through desire for the company of the woman concerned, -2,500 Panas;- () if through anger, 3,000 Panas;-(g) if through ignorance, 200 Panas; (h) if through childishness,-i.e. through carelessness,-100 Panas.--Such is to be the punishment for giving false evidence. The three castes giving false evidence'—that is, when a Kşattriya or Vaishya or a Shudra witness gives false evidence repeatedly,--they should be fined as aforesaid and then banished from the country; if the same offence is committed by a Brāhmaṇa however, he should be only banished—being allowed to take all his property with himself. Manu (8.139) [361] "Two Hundred and Fifty Paņas constitute the First Amercement; 500 Panas, the Middle Amercement; and 1,000, the Highest Amercement.'

·DUTIES OF MEN AND WOMEN 167 9 Again“ (862] 'If the seller is related to the rightful owner, he should be made to pay 600; if he is not related, nor one having rightful access to the property,--he should be dealt with like a thief-(Manu 8.198). (863] 'In this way should a man be punished for selling things without ownership, unintentionally; if he does it intentionally, he should be punished like a thief.' 'Avahāryah'-made to pay.-- Sānvayah-related to the owner; * niranvayah-other people, not related to the owner.—'Anapasaraḥ the way by which property moves from one to another, i.e. gift and so forth; one who has no such access', means of getting at the property concerned. * Chaurakilvīşam'-penalty for theft.—'Ànēna, etc.',-what is meant is that even when the man is related to the rightful owner,--such as his Brother, if he sells the property intentionally, he should be punished like a thief. Again [864] 'When a man gives money for a pious purpose to another who has asked for it,-if, subsequently, it is not used for that purpose, then, it shall not be given to him'-(Manu 8.212). [865] 'If, through arrogance or greed, the man should seek to recover the gift, he should be made by the King to pay one Suvarna, as an expiation for that theft (Manu 8.213). 'Subsequently, etc.'-If the man who asked for it did not perform the pious act, and yet he received the money, then he should be made to refund it.- In case the money had been promised (and not given), if the man should seek to recover it, then it should not be given to him; in case he takes it, he should be fined one Suvarna.

·CHAPTER XVII Inheritance-Partition SECTION (A)-TIME OF PARTITION Manu has laid down the principal time at which partition is to be made [866] 'After the death of the Father and of the Mother, the Brothers, having come together, shall divide equally (among themselves) the parental property. While the Parents are alive, they have no power :-(Manu 9.104). Samam'-Equally. That is, there is no deduction of the 'twentieth part (preferential share of the eldest Brother). It cannot be right to argue that-"When Manu (in 9.112) has declared the deduction of the Twentieth Part, it is only in reference to partition among persons whose father is dead; how then can there be an equality in the shares ?'-Because the said declaration of Manu has been made in reference to cases where the eldest Brother is possessed of special qualifications, or in reference to cases where the eldest Brother is specially desirous of having the Twentieth Part as his preferential share. Objection-- "That property which is in the independent possession of the Father of that there could be partition during his lifetime only if he wished it; so that it may be that the Sons shall make the partition after the Father's death; but why should the death of the Mother be condition precedent to the partition? The Mother has no right over the property.--It would not be right to argue that on account of the declaration of Shankha [867] "That in the matter of partition people wliose Fathers are living are not independent so long as the Mother is living - the death of the Mother must be a condition precedent to partition. Because this assertion of Sharkha's is only in praise of a Mother possessed of exceptional qualities. And certainly to make the partition dependent upon one who has no right over the property cannot be reasonable." Answer. In the word 'paitýkam, the term 'pity' stands as an Ekashēşa compound and hence denotes both the Father and the Mother; so that the Mother's property also becomes indicated; and it is in the partition of this property that the Mother's death is a condition precedent.* * That 'they have no power' is in reference to the Father's self-acquired property-says Vivādachintāmaņi later on, under Text No. 877. The Father's property is to be divided after the Father's death and the Mother's property after the Mother's death; such is the view of other Smrtis also. But as regards the Mother's property, the Sons are to receive it only if there are no Daughters.--"They have no power'--this implies that even during the lifetime of the Parents, the property may be divided with their permission-(Sarvajñanarayana). The Brothers, coming together, should divide, in equal shares, the Father's property after the Father's death and the Mother's property after the Mother's death. In view of the other text laying down an 'additional portion' for the eldest Brother, the present assertion of equality of the partition should be understood as referring to cases where the eldest Brother does not desire to have the additional portion. If the Father so wishes, the division of his property may be ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 169 The following objection might be urged—“According to the following text of Nārada (13.2) made during his lifetime also; as has been expressly declared by Yājñavalkya (2.114)-(Kullūka). The death of the Parents is productive as well as indicative of the ownership of the Sons. The term 'after the death indicates also such circumstances as becoming outcast or a renunciate and so forth, these conditions being as destructive of ownership as death itself.—'In equal shares';—but this also only when the Father wishes it so; as asserted by Yajñavalkya (2.114)-(Raghavananda). After the Father's death',--this indicates the time for the dividing of the Father's property; and 'after the other's death' indicates the time for the dividing of the Mother's property. Hence it follows that even while the Mother is living, the Father's property may be divided on the Father's death, and vice versa. This naturally implies that the Father's property cannot be divided while the Father is alive, nor the Mother's property while she is alive(Smſtichandrikā, p. 598). 'Equally', 'samam', -that is, there is to be no setting apart of the twentieth part for the eldest Brother.—This may be held to be inconsistent with what Manu himself has declared regarding the twentieth part being set apart for the eldest Brother. But in reality, there is no inconsistency; as this latter declaration refers to very special cases, where the eldest Brother may be possessed of exceptionally good qualities.-Uduyakara has explained the meaning of the present text to be that the 'equal' division is to be made of the property after its twentieth part has been set apart for the eldest Brother.--Halāyudha and Pārijāta have read 'saha' in place of samam', and the latter has explained it as 'among themselves' (so in this case the difficulty regarding equal' shares and the twentieth part' does not arise].- 'Paitykam'-includes the Mother's property also, says Halāyudha. Though the term used is 'Paitrkam' (Paternal or Parental), yet the property of the Grandfather, etc. is also meant to be included; as 'property acquired by the Grandfather' has also been declared to be what should be partitioned ;-such is the view of others.-- As a matter of fact, both of these the Mother's property and the Grandfather's property—are meant to be included; but in regard to the Mother's property its partition among the Sons should be possible only if she has left no Daughter or Daughter's offsprings (see following Text No. 868)–(Vivādaratnākara, p. 455). This text puts out of court the view that ownership is created by birth itself. Because the only possible reason for the Sons not being entitled to divide the property while the parents are living is that during the parents' lifetime, the ownership of the Sons is not there at all-(Dayabhāga, p. 11).-This text indicates that the ownership of the Sons comes into existence only on the death of the parents-(p. 16);-that during the Father's lifetime, there can be no partition except at the wish of the Father-(p. 28).-After the Father's death also, even though the Sons have acquired ownership over the property, it is not right for them to divide it among themselves while their Mother is living; it is only on the death of both Father and Mother that the Father's property should be divided by the Sons among themselves. There is no reason for taking the term 'paitrkamas standing for the property of both Parents, and for taking the text to mean that the Father's property is to be divided on the Father's death and the Mother's property on the Mother's death"; in fact, that the Mother's property is to be divided on the Mother's death is declared by Manu in another text (9.192)-(Dayabhāga, p. 58). Even though the particle cha' is there, the death of both parents is not meant to be necessary for the division of the Father's property. As the Sangrahakāra has definitely declared that 'the Father's property may be divided even while the Mother is living, since the Mother, apart from her husband, has no ownership over the property'. Similarly the Mother's property may be divided on her death, even while the Father is living, because so long as the woman's children are there, her husband has no ownership over her property--(Vyavahāramayukha, p. 94). This text clearly indicates that the Sons have no ownership over the property of the parents while the latter are alive (p. 525). What is meant is that the time for dividing the Father's property is after the Father's death, and that for dividing the Mother's property, after the Mother's death. The particle cha' indicates the possibility of other times for partition; it does not mean that both the parents should die before the property is divided, because the fact of the Mother being alive can be no bar to the dividing of the Father's property; nor can the fact of the Father being alive be a bar to the dividing of the Mother's property. The assertion that they have no power only means that they are not free to do what they like, and pot that ·170 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI (868) 'After the Father has died, the Sons shall divide the Father's property; and the Daughters shall divide the Mother's property; and if the Daughters are not there, then their offspring'*;- it is clear that the persons entitled to the Mother's property are the Daughters, and in their absence, the Daughter's sons; so that the Sons can have no right to take that property." But that is not so; because this text of Nārada's does not preclude the connection of others [it only asserts the right of the Daughter and her sons).- It is for this reason that Manu has spoken of both (Sons and Daughters) together, in the following text- [869] 'When the Mother has died, all the uterine Brothers and uterine Sisters shall divide the Mother's property equally '-(Manu 9.192). f Thus the Property is under the sole ownership of the Father, and it can be divided by the Sons only after his death, or even during his lifetime if he has become disabled; as has been declared in the following text of Shankham they have no ownership; because the ownership of the Sons over their Father's property comes with their birth-(Viramitrodaya, p. 550). The meaning of the text is this : After the Father's death, the Father's property may be divided, even though the Mother may be living; and similarly on the Mother's death, the Mother's property may be divided, even though the Father may be living. There would be no point in waiting for the death of both parents before dividing the property of any one of them-(Parāsharamadhava, pp. 326-327). * The term 'putrāḥ (Sons) serves to indicate that all kinds of Sons-oven the Ksētraja-are meant to be included ; so what the text means is that, if any of the twelve kinds of Sons is there, no one else is entitled to the property.--Pituh', 'of the Father', is meant to show that if there is any property acquired by any of the Brothers through learning and such other means, that is not meant to be divided along with the Father's property.-The Daughters shall divide among themselves the Mother's property ;-if there are no Daughters living, then their offspring shall divide the property among themselves; the pronoun 'tat' in the compound 'tadanvayah (their offspring') must refer to the Daughters which is the noun nearest to it. Such also is the opinion of Laksmīdhara. The Prakāsha and the Pārijāta have explained 'tadanvayah' as 'the son, grandson and so forth of the Daughter'; i.e. the Daughter's male issue, not the female issue-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 456). The text may be taken to mean that, before they partition the property, the Sons have no ownership over it, and yet the partition could not be the source of ownership.--But the answer to this is that, inasmuch as it is only after the Father's death that the Sons speak of the property as own, it is the Father's death that is to be regarded as the source of their ownership—(Dayabhäga, p. 11). † Mātrkam'-Mother's property, other than her Strīdhana.- Sisters', -those that have no sons.—(Sarvajñanārāyana). When the Mother has died, the uterine Brothers and such uterine Sisters as are unmarried shall divide the Mother's property among themselves; the married Sisters receiving some honorific present in keeping with the property. Each of the Brothers shall give to the married Sister the fourth part of the Mother's property, just as they give to the unmarried Sister, the fourth part of the Father's property- (Kullūka). This text lays down what is to be done in cases where the Mother dies before partition. As regards the unmarried Daughters, there is this difference that out of the Mother's property their share shall be equal to that of the Sons, but in the Father's property their share shall be only the fourth part of the Son's share—(Rāghavananda). The 'Sisters'meant here are those that are unmarried or poor--(Vivādaratnākara, p. 515; also Vibhāgasāra 11.1-11). The particle cha' may be taken as implying that the rights of the Brothers and Sisters are equal. But this can apply only to property other than the Mother's dowry, which goes entirely to the Sisters or their sons -(Dayanirnaya 23.2-4).

·INHERITANCE- PARTITION 171 [870] 'Even when the Father is unwilling, the property may be partitioned, if he is too old or of perverted mind or an invalid.' Of perverted mind'-i.e. with mind very much perturbed with disgust. $o long as the Father is alive and fit, the property can be partitioned only with his permission; this is going to be declared later on. Another alternative course open to the Sons, on the death of their Father, is that they should place the eldest Brother at their head and live under him; this is what Manu has declared in the following text- [871] "The eldest Brother alone may take the entire paternal property; the others shall live under him, just as under their Father'-(Manu 9.105). † Or, the Brothers may place themselves under any one of themselves who happens to be most capable; this is what has been thus declared by Nārada (13.5)- [872] "The eldest Brother, or the youngest Brother, shall support all the others, like a Father, if they so wish it-in accordance with his capacity; the well-being of the family is dependent upon the capacity of its head.' I * Even though the Mother may not be past the child-bearing age, even if the Father be unwilling,—if he happens to be unrighteous in his ways of life or attacked by a protracted disease,--the property may be partitioned by the Sons—Mitākṣarā, pp. 617-618). [On this, the Bālambhattī— Protracted'--.e. incurable.-Unrighteous'-this explains the term 'perverted mind'.] The simple meaning of the text is that even when the Father is unwilling, there may be partition under certain circumstances (Vyavahāramayūkha, p. 96). † What is said here applies to cases where the eldest Brother is possessed of superior qualifications (Sarvajñanārāyana). This applies to cases where the eldest Brother is exceptionally righteous. The eldest Brother shall take all the property that belonged to the Father; the younger ones shall depend upon him for their food and clothing. This means that all the Brothers shall live together-(Kullūka). This text sets forth an alternative to what has been declared in Manu 9.104, to the effect that the Brothers shall divide the property equally among themselves (Nandana). This text should be taken as advising co-residence of the inexperienced younger Brothers with the experienced eldest Brother till they grow up; it should not be taken in the literal sense that there shall be no division of property among the several Brothers of the same caste- (Smrtichandrikā, p. 615). This text should be taken as applicable to cases where the younger Brothers have not completed their studies, or are still minors, or are not entitled to share the property by reason of being insane or otherwise disqualified (Aparārka, p. 615). The meaning is that, if the eldest Brother is possessed of all the qualities of the eldest', he should be as complete a master of the partible property as the Father; and the others shall live upon livings provided by the eldest Brother- (Vivādaratnākara, p. 457). This is meant to indicate that it is not necessary that the Brothers must divide after the Father's death (Pivādachandra 19.2.2). On the Father's death, the eldest Brother is entitled to inherit the property (p. 20).—The meaning is that, if the Brothers wish to live together, then the eldest Brother, who is capable of looking after the family, shall take the entire property and the rest shall live under him---(Dāyabhāga, p. 62). What is meant is that it is highly commendable that all the Brothers should live together under the highly qualified eldest Brother (p. 557).—Here co-residence has been commended as the principal alternative to be adopted by the Brothers-- (Vīramitrodaya, p. 563). # This refers to cases where all the younger Brothers are unable to manage their affairs-(Smstichandrikā, p. 615).

·172 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Or, the Brothers may divide the property for pious purposes; as declared by Manu (9.111) [873] 'Thus may they live, either jointly, or separately, with a view to pious purposes; piety prospers by separate living, hence separation is meritorious.' In what way Separation augments piety has been thus explained by Byhaspati (25.6)- [874] 'For those who live and mess together, there is only one common worship of Pitrs, Deities and Brāhmaṇas ; for those who have separated, it should take place in each home separately.' When the property has been divided and each one is in sole and undivided possession of his property, he can proceed with the performance of sacrifices, according to his own wish, without regard to the other co-sharers,—and when the sacrifices are thus performed, there is augmentation of merit, which thus is due to separation (division of property).† The youngest Brother, if competent, may support the others. The middlemost Brother also becomes naturally included under this. The meaning is that the Brothers may live together and not divide, if they so wish it—(Dāyabhāga, p. 62). The middlemost Brother also becomes included-(Smrtitattva II, p. 170). * Inasmuch as no one voluntarily incurs any responsibilities regarding the performing of Jyoti stoma and other sacrifices, the text recommends separation, with a view to the performance of such acts. It is not meant that non-separation is sinful; all that is meant is that separation is meritorious--(Medhātithi). Brothers, not divided, should live together; but with a desire to acquire spiritual merit, they should divide and live separately, if they live separately, each of them performs separately the five 'Great Sacrifices and other religious acts and thereby Piety prospers-(Kullūka). Dharmya'-with a view to piety, not for the purpose of attaining independence -(Raghavānanda). After all the Brothers have completed their study and become competent to perform the Agnihotra and other rites, it is better that they should separate (p. 719). It is not meant that after the death of the parents, they must separate-(Apa. rärka, p. 722). Inasmuch as joint property cannot be used by any coparcener as he wishes, there can be no performance of any such rites as the Agnihotra which could be performed with only such wealth as belonged to one's own self; for this reason, the present text lays down separation as right and proper for the purpose of the accomplishment of these rites. It does not mean that if they did not separate, they would incur sin; all that is meant is that separation brings about additional merit-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 459). The terms 'sa-prthagvā and ‘kāmyayā' serve to indicate that the wish of the Brothers is the determining factor-(Dayabhāga, p. 21). Living together has heen commended; but for the purpose of augmenting Piety, separation should be effected. . 'Dharma' here stands for such pious acts as the worshipping of deities, etc. as it is only such acts with regard to which it has been declared by Brhaspati (below Text No. 874) that they should not be porformed separately while the Brothers are living together—(Viramitrodaya, p. 557). + So long as, by reason of their being too young, the property of the younger Brothers has not been separated from that of the eldest Brother, there is no separate performance by them of such rites as the Paishvadēva and the rest (A parārka, p. 719). 'Mess together i.e. so long as there has been no separation (Vivādaratnākara, p. 459).

·INHERITANCE PARTITION 173 SECTION (B)-PARTITION DURING FATHER'S LIFETIME In continuation with the words 'The Sons should divide', says Nārada (13.3) [875] 'When the menstruation of the Mother has ceased, when the Sisters have been given away, or when the Father's capacity for enjoyment has ceased, or when the Father has ceased to have any desires.' 'Prattāsu'--'given away'-married.Ramaņē'-The Father's capacity for enjoyment.-- Uparataspshē-has ceased to have any desire for things.* Yajñavalkya (2.114) 6 * In the Prakasha, in place of nivsttē ramanē', two other readings have been accepted : (1) nirapēksē ramanē' (*the husband having become indifferent'), and (2) nirastē chapi ramanē' ('intercourse having been given up'); and Halāyudha has adopted the reading “ramanāt in place of ramaņē', which means 'after the husband has desisted from intercourse. None of these readings, however, makes any difference in sense (Vivādaratnākara, p. 462). Vinastē' (i.e. for‘nivrtte')--becoming an outcast;-'asharanē' (v.l. for ramanē') gone out of the Householder's State. If we adopt the reading 'nivsttē vapi maraņāt, the meaning would be the Father having receded from death, i.e. being alive, but free from all desires'.—Here also the implication is that the fact of the Father being free from all desires brings about the ownership of the Sons over the Father's property, and so this also would be an occasion for the partition of the property (pp. 18-19). This refers to property coming down from the Grandfather and other ancestors.When menstruation has ceased and there is no chance of any other Sons being born, there would be partition among the Sons only if the Father wished it. If the ancestral property were divided before the Mother had passed the child-bearing age, those Sons that would be born after that partition would have no means of subsistence.--1) On the Father becoming an outcast, or free from all longings, or dying, his ownership over the property ceases; so this is the first occasion for partition.-(2) The second occasion for it would be when the Father being alive and his ownership being intact, he wishes to have the partition made.-(3) The Mother having passed the child-bearing age'--refers to the ancestral property; there being no chance of another Son being born, this would be the third occasion for partition, only if the Father desired it. The condition of the Sisters having been given away' is not meant to be an occasion for partition; it is meant only to emphasise the necessity of the Sisters being married—(Dāyabhāga, p. 24). What is meant is that the Sons shall divide the Father's property-la) when it has become definitely certain that the Parents have lost the capacity for begetting any more children,-=() when the marriage of the female children has been performed, and (c) when the Father has lost all desire for possessions. Baudhāyana, however, has declared the agency of the Father in this division also-'Property can be partitioned with the consent of the Father'-(Smſtichandrikā, PP. 605-606). 'Ramana' stands for sexual desire;-'uparatasprhē'-become free from attachment; the Sisters being married'-is to be construed with the cessation of Mother's menstruation', as also with the cessation of sexual desire'; that is, provision for the Sisters' marriage must precede the division of property, under both these circumstances-(Vyavahāramayūkha, p. 95). 'Ramana' -intercourse with woman. --Sprhā'-longing for wealth-(Madana. pārijāta, p. 647). This text commends partition at the time stated. The meaning is that when the Mother has ceased to menstruate, and the Father has become free from all desires, even though he may not by himself have accorded his consent such consent should be secured by the Sons somehow and the partition made (Vivādachandra 19.2-4). This text mentions the second occasion of partition (the first occasion being the Father's death); what is meant is that even during the Father's lifetime, if he has ceased to have any desires and consequently given up all pleasures, and the Mother has passed the child-bearing age, the partition can be made by the wish of the Sons themselves-(Mitākṣarā, pp. 615-616).

·174 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI [876] 'If the Father makes the division, he shall divide the Sons according to his wish; he may assign a superior share to the eldest, or all may have equal shares.' * (See Text 880 below.) * When the Father, desiring to enter upon the next life-stage, proceeds to make a division of his property among his Sons,-with a view either to afford such of them as are possessed of superior qualities an opportunity for the performance of religious rites, or to mere curiosity on his own part,- he may give to any Son whatever he likes to give him ; and he should not be guided by the wish of his Sons. Thus if he considers it right and proper, he may allot a superior share to the eldest Son, or more or less as he likes; or he may make all the Sons equal sharers. In any case the Father's own wish should be the determining factor- (Vishvarūpa). • Vibhāga', 'division', is the making or allotting of shares in the property of the Father and other ancestors with reference to the Sons and other heirs. in regard to this, the general rule is that the Father shall divide the Father's property '; under special circumstances, the Sons also do the dividing.-What the present text means that if the Father makes the division, he should divide the property among his Sons giving to each of them more or less as he pleases '; the term 'ichchhayā, 'according to his wishº, is meant to emphasise the fact that it is open to the Father to give more to one and less to another Son. This unequal division has been sanctioned by several texts. The implication of this is that the wish of the Sons cannot bring about the division.--This text applies to the Father's selfacquired property ; because in regard to the property acquired by the Grandfather and other ancestors, the right to partition belongs equally to the Father and the Sons (Aparārka). When the Father wishes to make the partition, he should divide—from himself-'according to his wish'-the Sons', -i.e. one, two or more as the case may be.—The text lays down a restriction--he shall assign a superior share to the eldest' which means that he shall give the best share to the eldest, the middling share to the middlemost and the lowest share to the youngest.--The 'superior share' has been indicated by Manu 9.112.--The particle 'vā', 'or', is in reference to the next alternativen-'or all may have equal shares'.—The said unequal division pertains to the self-acquired property of the Father; because in regard to the ancestral property, the rights of the Father and Son being equal, there would be no propriety in any unequal division made by the Father arbitrarily.—'If the Father makes the division' ;-this indicates that one occasion for partition is that when the Father wishes to do it.-Another occasion for partition has been mentioned by Nārada (see Text No. 875 above), and also by Gautama.--The third occasion for partition is that when the Father is found to be addicted to unrighteous ways, or has become a chronic invalid, when, even though he may be unwilling, the Sons may divide the property by their own wish; as has been declared by Sharkha (see Text No. 870 above).-This text refers to the Father's self-acquired property-(Mitāk sarā, p. 647). This text describes the division made by the Father during his lifetime. If the Father makes the division of the property that he has himself acquired, or which he has recovered from strangers,--then he may divide it in any way he chooses Apart from the property so acquired or recovered by the Father, if there is any other property, in that all the Sons shall have equal shares-(Viramitrodaya-Tīkā on Vājñavalkya). There are two methods of partition--(1) the absolutely equal division, and (2) the assignment of a superior share to the eldest son and the equal division of the rest; in any particular case which of these two methods shall be adopted should depend entirely on the Father's wish; and the wish of the Sons shall have nothing to do with it-(Smrtichandrikā, p. 609). This refers to the Father's self-acquired property ; because over the ancestral property, the rights of the Father and Son are equal-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 464). There are four occasions for partition: (1) During the Father's lifetime, whenever he wishes it;--(2) when the Mother has ceased to bear children and the Father has become averse to worldly desires, when the Sons evince a desire for partition, even though the Father may not wish it ;--(3) though the Mother may not have ceased to bear children, though the Father may not desire partition, yet if the Sons desire it, by reason of the Father becoming too old or addicted to evil ways or attacked by incurable disease;—(4) after the Father's death-(Madanapārijāta, p. 645).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 175 That the said wish of the Father prevails only in the case of his selfacquired property is clearly asserted by Visnu (17.1.2) in the following text [877] 'If the Father should divide his sons, his wish shall prevail in regard to his self-acquired property.' 'Svayam upātta'-self-acquired, acquired by himself; also what has been recovered by himself; according to the declaration of Manu (in the following Text 878). In this matter of‘self-acquired' property, the necessary condi. tion is that it should not have been acquired through the ancestral property; because what is acquired through the ancestral property is common property (between the Father and the Sons), like the ancestral property itself. Hence the Father is the sole authority, in regard to what he has himself acquired, without the help of the ancestral property, as to the division being equal or unequal. In connection with such property, the partition shall depend entirely on his own wish; and it is only over this property that the Sons "have no power' (as declared by Manu in Text No. 866). Manu (9.209)- [878] 'If the Father recovers a lost ancestral property, he shall not, unless he so wishes, share it with his sons; so also as regards his self-acquired property. That is, even in the case of ancestral property, if something had been taken possession of by others,-and the Father has recovered it from them, as also what he has himself acquired.--in both these cases, there can be partition only if the Father wishes it, not when he is not willing. * The unequal division mentioned here refers to the Father's self-acquired property; in the ancestral property, the Sons and the Father having equal rights, any arbitrary division by the Father would be wrong-(Parāsharamadhava, pp. 332-333). It has been declared that-So long as the faultless Father is there the Sons have no rights of ownership'; where the qualification faultless' indicates that if the Father happen to be beset with such defects as being an outcast and the like, the Sons are no longer subservient to him; so that if they desire partition, then that would be an occasion of partition, on which occasion the Sons would be the makers of the partition-(Vīramitrodaya, p. 551). (a) Partition entirely according to the Father's wish refers to the Father's self-acquired property; (b) the division with the superior share',-1.e. the ordinary share along with the Twentieth Part-for the eldest, as also the equal division, pertains to the ancestral property-(Smrtitattva II, p. 166). The second line explains what is meant by 'division according to the Father's wish'. So long as this interpretation is possible, whereby the Father's choice is limited to the two methods (specified in the second line), it cannot be right to take the first line as setting forth an independent alternative in the form of an entirely arbitrary division; specially because, if such an option were admissible, it might be possible to have such an absurd division as would give a lakh to one Son and a single shell to the second and absolutely nothing to the third-(Vyavahāramayukha, * In addition to what he has inherited, the Father recovers some such ancestral property as had become lost; he shall not, unless he wishes it, share such property with his Sons, even after these latter have attained their majority. An occasion for such sharing would arise when the Father himself proceeds to make the division among his Sons. As a matter of fact, even in the case of his self-acquired property, the Father himself divides it among his Sons as soon as they have attained their majority and the Father finds them duly qualified-(Medhatithi). This implies that the ancestral property that has come to him without any effort shall be divided among the Sons when these latter wish.—(Sarvajñanārāyana). Such property would be the self-acquired property of the Father-(Kullūka). There has been some ancestral property which none of his predecessors had been able to recover ;-if the Father succeeds in recovering it, it is his self-acquired p. 97).

·176 VIVĀDACHINTĀMANI Again [879] . The property belonging to the Grandfather, which has been lost but subsequently recovered by the Father by his own power, -as also what has been acquired by him through learning, valour and such other means, -over all this the Father's ownership has been declared.-Out of all this, he may make gifts or even enjoy it at his will. But on his death, his Sons have been declared to be equal sharers'*-(Brhaspati 25.12-13). property. This rule pertains to cases where the partition is being made at the instance of rebellious Sons; in cases where the Father is making the partition of his own accord, the rule is that he shall divide his Sons according to his wish' (Rāghavānanda). The implication of this is that when the Grandfather's property is being divided, it must necessarily be divided equally among the Father and his Sons-(Nandana). Of the ancestral property, if there has been something that had been long lost, -- and which had not been recovered by others, either because they were incapable of doing it, or because they did not make an attempt to do it,--if some such property has been recovered by the Father at the expense of money and effort, it shall be entirely his own, and not common, property (p. 128).--The fact of its being his 'self-acquired property' has been declared as the reason for not sharing it with his Sons unless he wishes it;this may be taken to indicate that the Grandfather's property, which is not the self-acquired property of the Father, may be partitioned among the Sons even when the Father is unwilling. But all that this indicates is that, when going to partition the property,--that portion of the ancestral property which he has himself acquired, the Father shall not divide among the Sons, if he does not wish it, while the rest of it he shall divide, even though he does not wish it; it does not mean that the partition shall be made by the wish of the Sons- (Dāyabhāga, p. 32). * Paitrkam' ancestral This he shall not share with his sons as it would be property acquired by himself. [Vāchaspati has taken this latter, not as a reason for the former assertion, but as a separate assertion regarding the regular self-acquired property]—(Vivādaratnākara, p. 461). If the Father has recovered an ancestral property that had been taken away by strangers, and this has been done without drawing upon any ancestral property, that property shall not be partitioned without his consent; similarly with the self-acquired property of the Father. [This explanation agrees with the Chintāmani's]-(Dayanirnaya 16.1.5). This implies that the property of the Grandfather the Father must divide, if the Sons so desire, even though the Father himself may not desire it-(Mitākşarā, pp. 649-650). This implies that the partition of the Grandfather's property does not depend upon the Father's wish (Parăsharamadhava, p. 339). The particle "iva' has to be supplied after "arjitam'; or, it may be that the ancestral property thus recovered by the Father has become his self-acquired property; and this is a reason for the foregoing assertion—Vēramitrodaya, p. 574). Such ancestral property shall not be partitioned if the Father does not wish'it; treating it as his self-acquired property; the construction being 'svayam arjitam iti krtvā na vibhajēt'-(Smrtitattva II, p. 165). * Svashaktya'-by his own power; i.e. by the use of his own wealth and bodily exertion. The term 'Father' here stands for all persons acquiring selfacquired property. This same rule applies to ancestral property also, --with the exception of immovable property-to the same extent as the non-ancestral selfacquired property--(Dāyabhāga, p. 129). * Father's ownership';-what is meant is that the Father is free to do what he likes. The effect of this freedom is set forth in the third line. Even without the consent of the Sons, the Father may make an unequal division. That ancestral property, which is as good as self-acquired, as recovered by the Father himself,- in regard to this the sons should not exert any pressure on the Father--(Smrtichandrikā, p. 650). The ownership of all this property rests with the Father, not with the Sons- (A parārka, p. 728).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 177 'Hştam', 'Lost'- i.e. taken away by others;—which the Grandfather himself failed to recover, but which was recovered by the Father;--also what the Father has acquired through his learning ;--in the dividing and giving away of all this, the Father's wish is the sole determinant;—so also in regard to the property that has been acquired through valour or other means, without draw. ing upon the ancestral property;similarly in regard to property recovered by the Father, without drawing upon the ancestral property,—the giving away and dividing and the rest is to be done by the wish of the Father only. It is only in regard to property of this kind that there can be assigned a superior share to the eldest son or a double share taken by the Father himself, if the Father so wishes. It is only in the case of the aforesaid property that there can be unequal shares as asserted in the following text by Yājñavalkya (2.114) [880] 'If the Father makes the division, he shall divide the Sons as he wishes; he may assign a superior share to the eldest, or all may have equal shares';- as this has been called forth only in reference to such property in regard to which the Father's ownership is absolute.* In regard to the 'equal distribution' asserted in this same text, the same authority says- (881] 'If he makes the shares equal, those Wives also shall be made equal sharers to whom no Stridhana has been given either by the Husband or the Father-in-law'-(Yājñavalkya 2.115). In this connection, as what is asserted is in reference to the division of property made by the 'Father', the 'Wives' spoken of must be the Wives of that Father himself.--Equal sharers'--what is meant is that these Wives are to be given such property as would make their property equal to those other Wives who have already received their Strīdhana. When the Father himself takes his whole self-acquired property and gives only a little of it to his Sons, then it is out of his own share that he should give to his Wives shares equal to that of the Sons. That is the reason why the text has laid down the separate gift to the Wives (out of the property) only 'when he makes equal shares'.t Just as in regard to his own self-acquired property, so also in regard to that ancestral property which he has recovered by his own power, the distribution is determined by the Father's wish-(Vivādachandra 19.2-5). 'Svashaktya'— by his own power',-i.e. without the help of the ancestral property. In the lost ancestral property that has been recovered by the Father with the help of the ancestral property,-by reason of his being the recoverer, the Father receives two shares (Vīramitrodaya, p. 574). * For notes see under 876 above. † If, even on the advent of old age, the Father should desire to make an equal division between himself and his Sons, then each of his Wives should receive a share equal to that of the Husband himself. This express declaration disposes of the objection that such division would be inconsistent with Hārīta's declaration to the effect that there can be no division between Husband and Wife'—(Smrtichandrikā, In cases where the plan of equal division has been adopted, the Wives of the divider himself, as also the widowed Wives of his Son and Grandson, if any, should receive the same share as their respective Husbands ;-such of those as may not have been given any Strīdhana either by their Husbands or by the Father-in-law himself ;-or those who have not received any Strīdhanan-should receive shares equal to what the Strīdhana should have been; and in accordance with a Smrti teat, the maximum of Strīdhana has been fixed at 2,000, even where the property of the family is very extensive. In cases where the property is not extensive, the Wives shall receive equal shares.--Others again have explained that the 'equal shares' p. 613). I 2 ·178 VIVÄDACHINTĀMAŅI Says Hārīta“ [882] 'Or, dividing a small portion, he may retain the greater portion and live in the house. If he finds himself becoming poor, he may resume the property from the Sons.' here prescribed are for childless Widows, with a view to their obtaining a child by * appointment'.--This, however, cannot be right; firstly, as there can be no'appointment' in the present age; and secondly, because in cases where 'appointment' would be possible, the Widow's share would be determined by the law relating to such 'appointment'-(Vishvarūpa). Such Wives of the divider as have received no Strīdhana either froin the Husband or from the Father-in-law should be made equal sharers uith the Sons; i.e. each such Wife should receive the same share that has been assigned to each of the Sons- (Aparārka). This is a special rule regarding cases where the option of 'equal division' has been adopted. In a case where the Father assigns equal shares to all his Sons, he should assign to his Wives also shares equal to that of the Sons,—to those Wives to whom no Stridhana has been given either by the Husband or by the Father-in-law. In cases where Stridhana has been given, half-a-share shall be allotted to the Wife. In cases where the Father divides the property on an unequal basis, giving to the eldest son a 'superior share and so forth, the Wives do not receive such 'superior shares '; what they receive is a share equal to the shares into which the residue of the property_after extracting the said 'superior share'-—is divided; along with such articles as have been declared to be such as should be given to them; such, for instance, as 'Utensils and Ornaments', which have been declared by Āpastamba to belong exclusively to the Wife.-Even when 'Body-born' (Legitimate) Sons are there, if the Father is making a division during his lifetime, the Wives should be allotted shares equal to the Sons'. Similarly also when the property is divided after the Father's death; as has been declared in Yājñavalkya 2.123.It is not right to take the present text to mean that all that the Wife shall receive should be what is sufficient for her subsistence'; as in that case, the terms 'equal' and share' would be absolutely meaningless. It might be held that if the property is a large one, she shall receive what is enough for her subsistence, and if it is small, she shall receive a share equal to that of the Sons':-But this would be repugnant to the injunctive character of the Injunction that 'the Wives shall be made equal sharers :-(Mitäksarā). If the Father makes the sons equal sharers, then he should make his Wives also equal sbarers. From this it follows that if he makes an unequal division among his Sons, the Wives also shall be made unequal sharers. This refers to the Wives of the Father himself, not to the Wives of the Son or the Grandson; because it is the Father who is the divider, and it is the divider's Wives that are meant.- If there are some Wives who have not received some property either from the Husband or the Father-in-law, then they are to receive just that amount of wealth. According to Halāyudha childless Wives also are meant to be included here. In cases where Strīdhana has been already given, the Wife is to receive only half-ashare, says the Prakāsha (Vivādaratnākara, pp. 464-465). If the Father makes an equal division,-among his Wives there may be some who have received Stridhana from the Husband or the Father-in-law, as also some who have got no Strīdhana; both these sets of Wives should be made possessed of equal wealth'.If, however, the Father takes two shares for himself, or, having divided a small portion of the property among his Sons, he takes for himself the larger portion,—then he should make his Wives 'equal sharers' out of what he has taken for himself—(Vīramitrodaya-?ēkā on Yājñavalkya). The term 'sama' stands for such share as is neither more nor less; or it may stand for the proportion of 4, 3, 2 and 1 shares, which may be called 'sama', i.e. equitable, in the sense of being sanctioned by the Scriptures. Under these circumstances, if the Father, by his own wish, makes his Sons 'partakers of sama (equal or equitable) shares', then his Wives also should be made equal or equitable sharers'. For instance, if the Sons, born of his Brāhmaṇa Wife, all receive equal shares, then the Brāhmana Wives also shall receive equal shares;-but if his Sons of mixed castes (born to him from Kşattriya, Vaishya and Shūdra Wives) receive 3, 2 and I shares respectively, then their Mothers also should receive the same shares as their respective Sons. This is an exception to what has been declared in Yājñavalkya under 2.114.-In case the Wives have received Strīdhana, in the form of Utensils and I2B ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 179 Upadashyēta'-Become poor.* This also refers to the Father's self-acquired property. Nārada [883] 'When dividing the property, the Father shall take two shares for himself.'t Ornaments and the like, then they shall receive half; but half' here does not stand for 'equally divided part', it stands for 'share' in general; and the meaning is that in this case, the Wives shall receive just that amount which, along with their Strīdhana, would be equal to what has been received by their Sons,--the share of each such Wife thus being made 'equal' to that of her Son.--Against this the following objection may be raised – This would mean that in an indirect manner, the Stridhana is to become divided, and this would go against all those texts which declare Strīdhana to be impartible'.- But there is no force in this objection; as a matter of fact, in cases where we have texts laying down exceptions to the general maxim of the 'impartibility of Strīdhana', this general maxim has to be taken as qualified (and set aside) to that extent; and where there are no exceptions, the maxim remains intact. In the present case, when we take the two texts together (a) 'She to whom po Strīdhana has been given shall receive an equal share', and (b) 'She to whom Strīdhana has been given shall receive half-a-share', we find that by implication, they constitute an exception to the general rule of the Impartibility of Strīdhana.- In a case where the Father makes an unequal division, allotting a 'superior share' to the eldest Son and so forth--the Wires are not to receive any 'superior share'; what should be done is that, after the 'superior share' assigned to the Son or Sons has been extracted, the residue shall be divided equally among the Sons,--the Wives also receiving equal shares. The present text, -as also the text that 'where the Sons are making the division after their Father's Death, the Mother also shall receive an equal share '--refers to such property ownership over which rests primarily with the Father; and such property is that which the Father has received as his share of the ancestral property and what he may have himself acquired by way of gifts and other sources Madanapārijāta, pp. 662-664). If the Father makes the Sons 'equal sharers', then such of his Wives as have had no Strīdhana should also receive shares equal to those of the Sons. If they have received their Strīdhana, then they shall receive only half of the Sons' shares (Parāsharamādhava, p. 333). On the death of the Father, when the uterine Brothers are dividing the property, they should give to their Mother a share equal to that of her Son. But this shall be done only if the Mother has received no Strīdhana; if she has received it, then she shall have only half-8-share. In case the division is being made by the Father himself, and he is allotting equal shares to the Sons, he should give to every one of his Wives a share equal to a Son's share(Dāyabhāga, p. 67). The Wives who have received no Strīdhand from the Husband or the Father in-law are mentioned here only by way of illustration; what is meant is that *those who have got no Strīdhana at all from any source'; for such Wives, the share is restricted to one equal to the Son's share. Thus then, even in a case where the Father makes an unequal division of his property by assigning the 'superior share' to the eldest Son,-the Wives are to receive a share equal to what the Sons receive out of the residue left after the extraction of the said 'superior share'; but the seniormost among them is not to receive a 'superior share :-(Vēramitrodoya, pp. 560-561). The implication of this text is that the childless Wife is to receive a share at the time that the Father is making a division of the property among his Sons- (Smrtitattva I, p. 179). When the Father is making an equal division of his property among his Sons, the Wife also is to receive a share. If the Wife has got her Stridhana she shall get a 'half-share', as declared by Yājñavalkya himself under 2.148; which means that she should get as much as would make her Stridhana equal to the share of the Son. If her Strīdhana is larger than the Son's share, then she receives no share at all in the property divided-(Vyavahāramayükha, p. 99). * If his own share of the property should become exhausted-(Vivādaratnākara, † This refers to the Father's self-acquired property-(Mitākşarā, p. 648; also Madanapārijāta, p. 647). 2 p. 463).

·180 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Shankha-Likhita [884] 'In case he has a Son with superior qualifications, he shall take two shares for himself; also the best biped and the best quadruped, in addition. He shall give a Bull to the eldest, and the House to the youngest, with the exception of the Father's residence."* When dividing'--this means that the Father is to receive two shares when he is making the division himself during his lifetime; but not if his Sons are making the division during his lifetime—(Smrtichandrikā, p. 611).-[The possibility of the Sons making the division during the Father's lifetime is declared by Vişnu'Even the Father's self-acquired property is sometimes divided by the Sons '.] * Ātmanaḥ' is to be construed with 'pratipadyeta', the meaning being 'shall take for himself', --and not with "dravyam', the meaning in which case would be “his own property'; and this would be inconsistent with what has gone before (Dāyabhāga, p. 44). This unequal division pertains to other Yugas, not the present one-(Parāsharamādhava, p. 339). This does not refer to the Father's self-acquired property, with regard to which he can always do what he likes; so that in that property, his portion cannot be limited to two shares; any such restriction would also be inconsistent with what has been said by Hārīta to the effect that 'the Father may take the greater portion for himself' (Text No. 882 above). For these reasons the present text must be taken as referring to the ancestral property-(Smrtitattva II, p. 167), This refers to cases where the Father has only one Son (see next Text, 884) (Vyavahāramayukha, p. 98). This refers to the Father's self-acquired property--(Vibhagasāra, 3.1-3). * The Father is entitled to two shares only if he has only one Son, not otherwise -(Vivādachandra 20.1-2). *Rūpamadhikam'-having taken one thing in excess, he shall take two shares.- If he has many Sons, -and if the eldest and the youngest are possessed of superior qualities,-- Bull should be given to the eldest and the House to the youngest. These special things are to go to these Sons even though the Father may be unwilling to give them. If such were not the meaning, then there would be no point in mentioning this specially. This conclusion does not militate against the principle of equal division, laid down by Yājñavalkya; because this latter rule is meant for cases where all the Sons are possessed of equal qualifications. The term ‘Ekaputraḥ, with an only Son', has been taken by Hatayudha to mean the eldest Son. The Bhäşyakāra, on the other hand, does not read the term 'putra' at all; and explains the text to mean that—'even though he be ēkaḥ, alone, without a Wife, he shall take two shares, and if he has a Wife, he shall satisfy her by assigning another share to her; from among bipeds and quadrupeds, he shall have one, in addition to the said two shares ' ;-he proceeds to add that the additional things are to be assigned to the eldest and youngest Sons only if they happen to be endowed with superior qualities; and this even though the Father may be unwilling ;-if there is no superiority in the quality of any Son, then the division may be equal or unequal, according to the Father's wish-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 466). Shankha-Likhita have declared here that the Father is to have two shares, only in the event of his having an only Son.—The author of the Vyavahāra-pārijāta has explained the text as follows:—The term ēka' stands for superior, and the meaning is that, if the man has a Son who is superior, i.e. possessed of such qualifications as render him capable of acquiring property for himself, then, when making a division between that Son and himself, the Father shall take two shares for himself.- Jimātavāhana (in Dayabhāga, p. 48) has expounded the compound "ēkaputraḥ as "ēkasya putrah', the son of one Father; i.e. the Body-born Son; whereby the Ksetraja Son becomes excluded; and the meaning according to him is that, if the Father is the Body-born of his Father then in the property of this latter he may take two shares.--This, however, is not right; as under this explanation, the text would pertain to the Grandfather's property, to which the rights of the Father and Son are equal, and there would be no justification for the Father,-even though he was the Body-born Son of his Father,—to take two shares. The author of the Mītaksarā has entirely ignored this text of Shankha-Likhitam (Vīramitrodaya, p. 566). Ekaputrah' -the eldest Brother, competent to earn. If he is not so, then the Father's share shall be equal to the Son's. If ēka' meant the number one', then the next word would become disjointed—(Vibhāgasāra 3.1-5).

·INHERITANCE- PARTITION 181 ' Rūpam'-thing. Thus the meaning is that the Father shall take (a) two shares, and (6) the best one among slaves, and (c) the best one among the cattle.-One Bull shall be given to the eldest Son if he is possessed of the best qualifications, and the House—with the exception of the Father's residence is to be given to the youngest Son who may be possessed of superior qualifications. This allocation of two shares to the Father must be taken as meant only for the case where the Father has an only Son; as it is simpler to take the two texts as having the same origin. This rule applies to property which is not the Father's self-acquired ; because in regard to his self-acquired property, he can divide it in any way he chooses, the mention of the only son would be futile. The term ēka' here stands for superior, and does not connote the number one. Otherwise, it would be inconsistent with the mention of the * eldest' and the youngest' (which would have no meaning if the only son were there). Hence what is meant is that in case the eldest and the youngest Sons are possessed of superior qualifications, they should receive the additional things, while the other Sons shall receive equal shares of the property; while the Father shall receive the two shares along with the additional things (best slave and best cattle). Such in brief is the import of the text. Says Āpastambam [885] 'Having satisfied the eldest Son by the gift of a superior article, the Father shall divide the rest equally among his living Sons.' The qualifying term 'jīvat', 'living', indicates that no share is to be given to the Wife of a Son who may be dead; though it has to be given to his Son; firstly because of the declaration that 'the Son is the same as one's own self', and secondly because of another text which actually enjoins it. The reading adopted in the Ratnākara, however, is 'jivan' (as a separate present participle, qualifying the 'Father'); that, however, is not right; as the fact of his being alive is clearly indicated by his being spoken as the 'maker of the division, which would make the qualifying term 'living' entirely superfluous.* Ükadhanēna' -one superior article. As to who is the eldest'-Dēvala says- [886] ‘Among Sons born of Wives belonging to castes different from that of the Father,—the Progeny, the Forefathers and Seniority rests upon that Son whose face they see first.' That is, among Sons born of Wives belonging to castes other than that of the Father, that Son whose face one sees first-on him rest the Progeny and the Forefathers, as also Seniority. Which means that the Father's first male child is the eldest'.—But if a Son is born, even subsequently, of a Wife 6 * In regard to his self-acquired property, the Father is free to do what he · likes, but the ancestral property cannot be divided at his mere will, as the Sons also have a share in it. Even so, the partition made by the Father should be accepted as valid-(Vibhāgasāra 3.1-5). Jāvan', 'Living', Father, who is incapable of having more Sons.--Ēkadhanëna'-by the gift of a good house or some such thing. Whether the eldest shall receive more or less shall depend upon the excellence of his qualities (Vivādaratnākara, p. 467). The living Father shall satisfy the eldest Son by giving to him some excellent thing out of the joint property and the rest he shall divide equally among himself and the Sons, including the eldest. The special share is given by reason of his being the first born; and this share shall consist of only one good thing-(Smrtichandrika, p. 608).

·182 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI belonging to the same caste as the Father, then this Son is the 'eldest', even though born later. This has been thus declared by Manu (9.125) [887] 'Among Sons born of Mothers of the same status,-if there is no other distinction, there is no seniority on account of their mothers; seniority is to be declared by birth only.'* That is, in a case where the Father has Sons from Wives belonging to several castes,--the Son of the Wife who is of the same caste as her Husband is the 'senior', even though he might have been born later. Again [888] 'If an eldest Brother, through avarice, defrauds the younger Brothers, he shall lose his seniority and also his share and shall be punished by the King'-(Manu 9.213). * Of the same status '-i.e. belonging to the same caste-(Medhātithi). Among Sons born of Mothers of the same caste, as there is no distinction based upon the difference in caste, it has been held that seniority is not due to the order of the Wives; only one who is senior in age is to receive the Preferential Share. Thus, inasmuch as Seniority on account of Mothers' is found to be both affirmed (in Manu 9.124) and denied in the present text), this has to be taken as a case of option; the option being determined in each case by the presence or absence of superior qualifications; i.e. one possessed of superior qualifications is to be regarded as the 'Senior'. It is for this reason that the Preferential Share has been declared by Brhaspati to be given to the eldest' only if he is possessed of superior qualifications, in regard to Birth, Learning and other qualities--(Kullūka). In Texts 122, 123 and 124, Manu has propounded the views of other people regarding partition; with this text he proceeds to set forth his own views; and to that end, he explains what he means by 'eldest'. Among Sons born of Mothers of the same caste, the seniority qualifying for the Preferential Share depends upon priority of birth, not upon the sequence in the marriage of their Mothers.--Kullūka has called this a case of option; while Medhātithi regards it as a mere 'commendatory declaration'. As a matter of fact however, Priority of Birth is the determining factor-(Raghavānanda). Some people have held the view that 'Verses 122-124 of Manu have stated the Pūrvapaksa view and the present verse states the Siddhānta view; otherwise there would be an inconsistency between the two'.-This however is not right; because it has been already explained that the diversity in the division is due to differences in the qualifications and character of the Sons. This is also the correct explanation; for, so long as a text can be interpreted as stating the author's own view, it cannot be right to take it as representing the contrary (Purvapakşa) view. Further, Laksmīdhara and alsс the Pārijāta have decided that the Preferential Share for the younger Son born of the senior Wife is due to him by reason of his being the 'eldest', i.e. seniormost(Vivādaratnākara, pp. 476-477). *Jyēsthatā', 'Being eldest', 'seniority consists not only in being born first; as it has been declared that Seniority is due to qualifications and age'-(Vivādachandra 19.2–7). Seniority' among Brothers rests upon the seniority of the Mother, and when there are several Sons born of Mothers of the same caste, ‘seniority' goes by age -(Dāyanirnaya 19.2-6). † 'Defrauds'-i.e. cheats them out of their share in the property; as also of the rewards and honours that may be conferred by the King on the family:- 'Loses his seniority-i.e. is to be treated as an ordinary ‘kinsman' (and not obeyed and respected like the Father). This, however, does not preclude all that is due to him as the eldest Brother.--He loses also his 'share'-i.e. the Preferential Share due to him as the eldest Brother.—'Punished' ;-as no special form of punishment has been prescribed, the man shall be reprimanded or censured or fined, in accordance with the exact nature of his offence-(Medhātithi). 'Defrauds-i.e. tries either to deprive them of their share or to reduce it. “Loses his seniority',-i... is not to be respected. As the text expressly names the eldest' Brother,-it follows that, if the younger Brothers behave in a similar manner, they are not to lose their share--(Sarvajñanārāyana).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 183 Manu (9.112) [889] For the eldest, the Preferential Share shall consist of the twentieth part (of the property), as also the best among the chattels belonging to the Father; half of that for the middlemost, and the fourth for the youngest.'* 6 He becomes deprived of the honour due to him, as also of the Preferential Share-(Kullūka). 'Vīnikurvita'—turn out of the House.—'Ajyēsthaḥ'-deprived of the honour due to him ;-abhāgah'—not entitled to share the paternal property--(Raghavānanda). The text lays down the circumstances under which the eldest Brother becomes deprived of his share.--Vinikurzīta'-set aside (Vandana). If the eldest Brother oppresses the younger ones, he ceases to be entitled to respect and to the Preferential Share-(Rāmachandra). In this text Manu has been understood to make the misappropriation of joint property an offence only for the eldest Brother, not for the younger ones. But this is not right; because just as it is an offence for the eldest Brother, who is in the place of the Father, so it is also for the younger ones, who are in the position of Sons. This has been made clear by Gautama quoting the Aitareya Brāhmaṇo 2.1-7- * If a man deprives a co-sharer of his share, he becomes destroyed '; where the offence is not restricted to the eldest Brother-(Mitākşarā, p. 672). Vinikurvita'-defrauds.-Ajyeșthaḥ' -no longer to be respected as the eldest Brother-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 478). When it is wrong for the eldest Brother, who is his own master, to misappropriate joint property, it is very much more so for the younger Brothers who are dependent upon the eldest Brother; it cannot mean that such misappropriation is wrong for the eldest Brother only-(Parăsharamādhava, pp. 383-381; also l'īramitrodaya, p. 706). The term 'Eldest Brother' stands here for coparceners in general; the meaning being that such misappropriation is wrong for the eldest, and much more so for the younger ones among them-(Vyavahāramayukha, p. 131). * Some people have held the view that the rules sanctioning the Preferential Shares are not meant for the present age; that they stand on the same footing as the rule sanctioning the killing of cows for the Madhuparka offering.-This, however, is not right; no such restriction regarding the time of application is found anywhere. -The twentieth part'-of the entire estate--shall be extracted and given to the eldest Brother as his Preferential Share; "half of that'-i.e. the fortieth part,--to the middlemost Brother; and the 'fourth'-i.e. the eightieth part-to the youngest Brother.--After all these Preferential Shares have been extracted, the remainder shall be divided into three equal shares.-Further, among all the chattels, that which happens to be the best, is also to be given to the eldest Brother.-If we adopt the reading 'dravyēshvapi param varam' in place of 'survadravyāchcha yad varam", the meaning would be that 'among all kinds of things, the best of each kind shall be given'; for instance, if there are cows and horses, the best cow and the best horse shall be given to him absolutely as a Preferential Share, not in lieu of another article, or in return for a price.—This rule sanctioning the Preferential Shares is meant only for those cases where all the three Brothers are possessed of special qualifications-(Medhätithi). Out of the joint property, the twentieth, the fortieth and the eightieth parts being extracted, the twentieth part and one good article shall be given to the eldest Brother and the other two parts to the two younger Brothers, and then the remainder shall be divided equally among them. This shall be done if all the three Brothers are possessed of equally high qualifications-(Sarrajñanārāyana; also Kullūka). The meaning is that when the property is being divided, the eldest Brother, if he is worthy, shall receive the best share (Rāghavānanda). If there are several middle Brothers, each of them shall receive what has been laid down for the 'middlemost '-(Nandana). Manu here lays down the allotment of Preferential Shares. To the eldest Brother, who is also the best equipped with learning and other qualities, shall be given the twentieth part of the whole partible property, and also the best thing among the articles constituting that property, -as his Preferential Share ;-half of this, i.e. the fortieth part of the same property, as also a middling thing, shall be given to the middlemost in age, who is also possessed of middling learning and other qualities; the fourth part of it,-i.e. the eightieth part of that same property, and ·184 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI Again- [890] 'From among the goods of all kinds, the eldest shall take the best; as also anything that may be particularly good, and also the best of ten (animals)'-(Manu 9.114).* P. 469). C also some little thing, shall be given to the youngest in age, who is also possessed of the lowest qualifications—(Smrtichandrikā, p. 619). All these unequal divisions depend upon the wish of the person making the division--(Aparārka, p. 717). Of the entire estate, the twentieth part, as also the best of all the chattels, shall be given to the eldest; half of that-i.e. the fortieth part of the property--and a middling thing, shall be given to the middlemost, and the fourth of that-i.e. the eightieth part of the property and some inferior article, shall be given to the youngest. This is the mode of Preferential Partition made after the death of the Parents [Mitākṣarā, p. 621].--All these Preferential Shares are to be awarded by the neutral persons who are making the partition-says Bālambhaļķī. The Preferential Shares here laid down are for those cases where the eldest and others are possessed of special qualifications. The rule on this point is as follows:—When there are several Sons born of the same Mother, and all possessed of good qualifications,—but there is a gradual decrease in the degree of these qualifications,--then, out of the joint property, the twentieth part shall be extracted and given to the eldest Brother, along with the best thing among the chattels; the fortieth part along with a middling thing to the middlemost Brother, and the eightieth part along with an inferior thing to the youngest Brother-(Vivādaratnākara, This rule applies to cases where the property is more than ten', and when there is a difference in the qualifications of the Brothers-(Vivādachandra 20.2.2). The meaning of this is as follows:-Out of the partible property, the twentieth part, and also the best among the partible articles, are to be given to the eldest Brother; the fortieth part of the joint property and a middling article to the middlemost and the eightieth part and an inferior article to the youngest; the remainder of the property is to be divided equally among all. There are several other texts sanctioning such unequal divisions; but, though sanctioned, as the practice is not followed among people, it should not be adopted in practice; this case being analogous to the case of Niyoga which, though sanctioned by the Scriptures, is not adopted in practice at the present time—(Madanapārijāta, p. 646). This text lays down the method of Preferential Shares.-Such unequal division by the Father is permissible only in connection with his self-acquired property; in the ancestral property, all have equal shares, and it is absolutely wrong to have an unequal division merely by the Father's whim—(Parāsharamādhava, pp. 332-333). * The first sentence only reiterates what has been said before regarding the eldest Brother taking the best of the chattels'.-The term "jāta' may mean kind or variety. Anything particularly good'--such as a piece of Cloth or an Omament.- ‘Best of ten animals-if there are ten horses, or ten cows, he shall take the best of these. Some people read 'varān' for 'varam', and take it as qualifying 'dashataḥ which is construed as Accusative Plural, the meaning being that'he shall take ten good animals'-(Medhātithi). When the property has been divided into the requisite number of shares, any article which is the best, and which the eldest Brother likes best, should be taken by him; similarly among all the shares, what may happen to be particularly good shall be taken by the eldest; and out of every ten animals to be partitioned, that which is the best shall also be taken by him, in addition to what may have been included under his own share.---This applies to cases where the eldest Brother possesses very high qualifications and the younger ones very low qualifications (Sarvajñanārāyana). From among the goods of all kinds, the eldest Brother shall take what may be the best; this reiterates what has been said before. If there is any single thing that is particularly good, that also will go to the eldest; as also the best one among every ten animals. This applies to cases where the eldest Brother possesses high qualifications and the younger ones possess none-(Kullūka). 'Sarvēsām'-from among all the things to be divided.--Dashataḥ-from among ten cows or other animals. This refers to cases where there are ten animals (Rāghavananda).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 185 Baudhāyana- [891] "The eldest Brother shall take one out of ten; the others shall receive equally. [892] 'All the Sons are to receive their Father's property equally. Any one of them who is endowed with Learning and Righteousness deserves to receive more'-(Brhaspati). All this applies to cases where the eldest Brother is possessed of very superior qualifications; while the Twentieth Part is to be given to him as a Preferential Share when he possesses just some special qualifications; in cases where all the Brothers possess equal qualifications, the eldest Brother shall get only some little thing as a present to satisfy him.* Devala- [893] "To the eldest,-if he is righteous,—the tenth part shall be allotted.' This is meant for cases where the eldest Brother is specially devoted to Vedic Study and Fire-tending, and the others are all entirely devoid of qualifications; so say Halāyudha and Pārijāta.f Brhaspati- [894] 'Where the Father has made the division-either in equal or unequal shares that division shall be maintained (by the Sons); otherwise they would become degraded.' I The Preferential Shares mentioned in the previous texts refer to cases where the qualifications of all the Brothers are of a high order; the present text lays down what is to be done in cases where the eldest Brother is possessed of distinctly higher qualifications.--All kinds of goods-such as Cattle, Land, Gold and so forth;- 'the best-the eldest shall take. If there is anything “particularly good', which cannot be divided,--such e.g. as the image of a deity, that also the eldest shall take. He shall also receive the best one from among every ten animals-(Wandana). If the eldest Brother is possessed of very superior qualifications, then- (a) that which is the best article among all the goods, (b) that which may be the best among its kind,-0.g. the best of Rubies,--and (c) the best of every ten animals, cows, buffaloes, etc.,--the eldest shall receive-Pivādaratnākara, p. 469). * The meaning is that the Sons are equal sharers in the property as well as the debts of the Father .... If the Sons of a Father are not outcasts, or under other disabilities,--and they are all equal in the matter of Learning and other qualifications, --they shall share the property equally ;—but in case there is inequality among them, one who happens to be endowed with superior learning and other qualifications shall receive more', either through a 'Preferential Share' or through "unequal division'—(Smstichandrikā, pp. 616 and 618). Excessive shares shall be given to the eldest or other Brothers only when they are possessed of superior qualifications-(Vivādachandra 20.2.2). Here Bịhaspati points out in what cases the ordinary rule of equal division may be deviated from-(Smrtitattva II, p. 164). † According to Halāyudha and Pārijāta, this is to be given where the eldest is equipped with Vedic Scholarship and the others have no special qualifications ; according to others, the meaning is that when the eldest is equipped with the Fire, and with Vedic Scholarship, and the others have no special qualifications, then the eldest receives the 'tenth part' and among the other unqualified Brothers the 'fortieth part of the property is to be divided—(Vivādaratnākara, p. 472). $ What is meant to be precluded by this is the possibility of the partition being effected by the wish of the Sons (Aparārka, p. 717). By the Father',-i.e. in the manner prescribed in the Scriptures. What would not be in accordance with the Scriptures would not be lawful and hence not irrevocable. Even in regard to one's self-acquired property, it would not be a lawful division if one Son received a thousand gold-pieces and the other only a shell. Hence there can be no doubt that in case the unequal division has been made in an unauthorised manner, and if the Sons object to it,-it cannot be maintained (Smrtichandrikā, p. 610).

·186 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI This is in regard to the self-acquired property of the Father. Manu (9.215) [895] 'Among undivided Brothers, if there is a Joint Concern,--the Father shall, on no account, make an unequal division of it.'* This refers to the case of such property as has been acquired by the joint labour of the Brothers; hence there is no inconsistency between this and what has gone above. Brhaspati- [896] One who is seniormost, in regard to Birth, Learning and other qualifications, should receive two shares out of the inheritance; the others should be equal sharers; the former is like a Father unto these.' What is meant is that in regard to his self-acquired property, the Father is entirely free to take two shares for himself, or to give something to the Sons and take all the rest for himself, or to make an unequal division among the Sons- (Vivādachandra 19.2-10). * It has been declared by Yājñavalkya (2.116) that 'an unequal division has been declared to be lawful, if made by the Father'. This is what is desired here.- Joint Concern'-i.e. where all of them have acquired wealth--one by agriculture, another by receiving gifts, another by service, while another takes care of what has been earned by others and invests it and uses it to the advantage of all;-all such wealth shall be pooled together and divided equally, and no excessive share shall be given to any one by the Father, through his love for him—(Medhātrthi). * Joint Concern --acquiring wealth jointly—by agriculture and other diverse methods.--The Father shall not give more to any one on the ground of his having put forth more work than the others—(Sarvajñanārāyana). If among the Brothers living together with their Father, there is some Concern carried on for the purpose of acquiring wealth,—then, at the time of the division of that wealth, the Father shall not on any account give more to any one Son than to the others-(Kullūko). This is an exception to what Yajnavalkya has said in regard to the legality of unequal division made by the Father--(Rāghavānanda), Saha utthānam'-joint acquisition-Vişamam', 'unequal',-by allowing a larger share to the eldest Son-(Nandana). In cases where property has been acquired by the joint labour of all the Brothers, the division shall be equal.-oven when done by the Father. The implication of this is that in other cases an unequal division may be made by the Father- (Aparārka). 'Utthāna'-Action tending to the acquisition of wealth-(Vivādarat nākara, p. 468). "Utthāna' is acquisition. If all the Brothers have had an equal share in the work of acquiring the wealth, there shall be no unequal division--(Vivādachandra 19.2-8). What is meant here is that, if the Sons themselves ask for partition, during the Father's lifetime,—then the Father shall not give a Preferential Share to any one- (Dāyabhāga, p. 57). If there has been an equal 'utthāna'-i.e. exertion, on the part of all the Brothers, towards the acquiring of the wealth, then the Father shall not make an unequal division-(Vīramitrodaya, p. 562). What Manu declares here is that there shall be no unequal division if the Sons themselves ask for partition—(Smrtitattva II, p. 165). 'Utthāna'-earning, acquisition. There shall be no unequal division, as it has been prohibited. So that, in this case, the Father shall not receive two shares, nor shall the eldest Brother receive a Preferential Share-(Vibhāgasāra 3.2-3). This refers to the case where the Sons have asked for partition-(Dāyanirnaya 16.2–1). † This text lends support to the view that the 'seniority' does not mean older age only, but also superiority in Learning and other qualifications-(Smrtichandrikā, p. 620; also Vivādachandra 20.2-4).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 187 This refers to that eldest Brother who is possessed of the highest quali. fications and is competent to support the others, like a Father. Again- [897] ‘All the Sons are to receive their Father's property equally. Any one of them who is endowed with Learning and Righteousness deserves to receive more'-(Brhaspati). [This is the same as Text 892 above.] Vyāsa- [898] 'If any one of the Brothers, while depending upon the joint property, acquires, through valour and such other means, any such property as conveyances and the like, the Brothers shall share that property; two shares out of it shall go to the acquirer and the remainder shall be divided equally among the rest.'* Herein Brhaspati explains to what sort of eldest Brother' excessive shares are to be given-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 480). The eldest Brother is entitled to two shares, not only by virtue of his being seniormost in age.—The title to 'two shares' cannot be regarded as referring to such property as the eldest Brother might have acquired for himself; as, in that case, there would be no point in the mention of Learning and other qualifications :- This rule regarding the two shares' applies to only those cases where the division is among uterine Brothers; when the division is among uterine and non-uterine Brothers, the eldest' is to receive only the twentieth part' as his Preferential Share—(Dāyabhāga, p. 42). * Joint property - Property belonging to those not separated.--The term ‘Brothers' stands here for coparceners in general.---Through valour and such other means'.-This indicates the partibility of all those other kinds of property whiclı a coparcener may obtain in marriage and so forth, on the basis of the joint property- (Smytichandrikā, p. 640). This should be taken as applying to all those kinds of property obtained by Learning, Bravery and the like, which do not fall within those specifically declared to be impartible-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 508). The acquirer worked through his body as also through the joint property, while the other co-sharers worked through the property only; hence it is only equitable that the former should have a double share-- (Dāyanirnaya 14.2-3). This refers to cases where the additional property has been acquired with the help of the ancestral property-Aparārka, p. 725). Just as in the case of the property acquired by Learning through the help of the property of the Father and others,--so also in that of property acquired by Bravery, etc., the acquirer is entitled to two shares-(Parāsħaramādhava, p. 379). The mere fact of the property being acquired by Bravery, etc. does not make it impartible; under certain circumstances, even such property is partible; e.g. this text speaks of such property when acquired with the help of the joint property p. 107).—The text lays down a double share for the earner of the property in what he may have acquired with the help of the joint property; while in a case where such property has been acquired entirely with efforts of his own body and with the help of his own private property--without drawing upon the joint property, -he receives, not only two shares, but much more; in fact, the whole of it goes to him-(Dāyabhāga, p. 111). Sädhāranam'-Joint property. This provides an exception to the general rule that the gains of bravery, etc. are not partible-(Madanapārijāta, p. 688). 'Brothers ? — This term stands for all members of the joint family, Uncle and the rest. If, in the earning, some loss has been suffered by the joint property, the share received by the coparceners in the newly acquired property shall be increased in proportion to his share in the said loss. Such is the view of the Dayabhāyam (Smrtitattva II, p. 176). One who has earned more with the help of the joint property shall receive a double share (4.1-2).—This refors to cases where the additional property has been acquired with the help of the joint property.--'Shauryādi' stands for that of which Valour is the first'; so that Leaming also becomes included; and in all 'gains of Learning', as defined by Katyāyana, the acquirer receives a double share (Vibhāgasara 9.2-1).

·188 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI That is, even when any one acquires, by his own special personal effort, through bravery and such means, any property,--with the help of the joint property,--the acquirer is entitled to two shares in that property. [This text is quoted and commented upon again on p. 214 of the printed text, vide Text No. 953 below.] Vashistha [899] 'Among these, if any one has acquired something by himself, he should receive two shares in it.** This means the same as the previous text. [This text is quoted again and commented upon, vide Text No. 952.] Yajñavalkya (2.120- [900] '(A) In what accrues to the joint property, the division shall be equal. (B) Among persons born of several Fathers, the shares are determined through their respective Fathers.' (A) 'Sāmānya, etc. etc.'—That is, even when a co-sharer in the joint property adds to that property, through Agriculture, Trade and other means, -he shall not receive a larger share.-This, however, is to be understood to refer to cases where the other coparceners also have done the same (towards the augmentation of the joint property); otherwise there would be inconsistency with the rest of the text.-(B) 'Anēka, etc. etc.'-That is, in a case where there have been several undivided Brothers and they have all died, each of them leaving several Sons -and each of these Sons adds to the joint property by means of Agriculture and other means, each of these Sons will not have a full share, like their Fathers; all the Sons of one Father will jointly receive only what would have been the share of their common Father.t If a coparcener by his own efforts, but with the help of the joint property, acquires some property, he shall take two shares out of it for himself and divide the rest equally ainong the other coparceners—(Vivādachandra 20.2-3). * 'Among these',-1.e. among the Father, Brother and other coparceners- (Madanapārijāta, p. 647). If among the Brothers living together, any one has acquired property by his own efforts, but by drawing upon the paternal property, that property is to be divided among all the Brothers, but the person who has acquired it shall receive two shares-(Mitākṣarā, p. 652). † (A) • Arthasamutthāna'-acquiring of property. When a property is acquired by all coparceners with each other's help, it should be divided equally. Of such property, the division shall be equal, even when done by the Father.- (B) Several Brothers, who had lived together with their property undivided, have died; among them one has left a single Son, another has left two, and the third has leit several Sons; in this case, the shares that will be assigned to these Sons will be through their respective Fathers; that is, the two or several sons of one Father shall share among themselves only that much of the property which would have fallen to the share of their Father; and the whole property shall not be divided equally among the Cousins (A parārka). (A) 'Sāmānyārthasamutthānē'--this qualifies dravyē'; the meaning being, ' in the case of such property as has its rise from the joint property'; i.e. what has been derived from the common property,--the division shall be equal; even though some individual coparcener may have put forth much bodily labour and other kinds of effort in the obtaining of that property. But this is so only in the case of Brothers, not of all kinds of coparceners.--(B) There is equal division of the Inheritance only among Brothers ;-'Anēkapitykāņām',-among Cousins and other coparceners,—the division proceeds on the basis of their respective Fathers. That is to say, the Brothers having made an equal division among themselves, when their Sons, in their turn, come to make a division, the Sons of each of the said Brothers shall divide among themselves only that which forms the share of their Father. The sense is that the Grandsons are entitled to the Grandfather's property oply through their Fathers, not by themselves, like their Fathers (Vishvarüpa).

·INHERITANCE- PARTITION 189 Nārada- [901] 'If a Brother, engaging himself in the business of the family, carries on their business, he should be enriched by the Brothers by the present. ing of Food, Clothes and Conveyances.' (A) This is an exception to the law relating to the 'gains of learning' and such other properties out of which the acquirer receives two shares. If the common property of undivided Brothers is augmented, through Trade, Agriculture and other means, by any one of the coparceners, the division of it shall be equal, and the acquirer shall not receive two shares.--(B) This lays down the rule for the division of the Grandfather's property among Grandsons. Though it is true that in their Grandfather's property, the Grandsons derive their right from their birth,-just like their Fathersyet the division of that property among them shall be through their Fathers, and not through themselves. Aněkapitrkānām' means those who have several Fathers but the same Grandfather-says Bālambhatti.)-The meaning is as follows:-In a case where a number of Brothers who had been living together have died, leaving Sons,—and there is divergence in the number of Sons left by them, one having left two, another three and so forth,--the two Sons of one Brother shall, between themselves, receive the single share that would have been their Father's; and the four Sons of the other Brother shall receive, among themselves, the single share that would have been their Father's.-— The same rule applies also to the case when some Sons of the Grandfather are alive, while others have died leaving their Sons; the living 'Sons' receiving their own respective shares, and the Sons of the dead 'Sons' receiving what would have been their Fathers' share (Mitākşarā). When all the Brothers have acquired property jointly by such means as Agriculture, Trade and the like, the division shall be equal among all of them. The particle 'tu' serves to differentiate this case from that of the property that may have been acquired by a Brother independently of the joint (ancestral) property, which latter is not partible. (B) This lays down the rule for dividing the Grandfather's property. In a case where among the two Sons of the Grandfather, one has left one Son and the other four Sons,--the property shall be divided into two parts; one part shall go to the single Son of the first Son, and the second part shall go to all the four Sons of the second Son.-The particle 'tu' indicates that the number of shares into which the whole property shall be divided shall not be the same as the number of the Grandsons—(Vīramitrodaya-Pikā on Yājñavalkya). (A) This refers to cases where the property has been acquired by means other than Learning,—such as Agriculture and the like.-(B) In a case where Brothers, living jointly with their Father, have died leaving Sons, the first Brother leaving two, the second three, and the third four,-though these Grandsons have a right in their Grandfather's property by virtue of their birth, equally with their Fathers, yet the two Sons of the first get only one part, the three Sons of the second get only one part and the four sons of the third also get only one part of the property- (Parāsharamadhava, pp. 378 and 337). (A) If the joint property has been augmented by means of Agriculture, etc., the addition shall be divided equally among all; and the individual acquirer shall not have two shares.—(B) 'Anēkapitrka' are Cousins, the Sons of several Brothers, born of their Wives ;-to these, shares in the Grandfather's property shall be assigned in accordance with the shares of their respective Fathers. That is to say, for example, there were three Brothers; one of them has one Son, the second has two, and the third has three; thus there are six Cousins; when these come to divide their Grandfather's property among themselves, they shall divide it,—not into six equal parts, but-into three equal parts as among the three Brothers (their Fathers); and the only Son of the first Brother shall take the whole of one such share; the two Sons of the second Brother shall receive, between themselves, the second of those three shares; and the three Sons of the third Brother shall receive, among themselves, the third share. In those cases where some of the Brothers have died leaving their Sops, while some are living, the division shall be on the same lines, each of the Brothers receiving a full share and their nephews receiving only what would have been their Fathers' share-Madanapārijāta, pp. 688, 659-660). (A) 'Samutthāna' is increase, augmentation. The meaning is that the acquirer does not do anything more than the others. This refers to cases where the acquisition has been equal.-(B) The meaning of the second line is that, where there have been several undivided Brothers and they have died, leaving different numbers of Sons ·190 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI * That is, in a case where one of the coparceners takes up the work of the entire family and with his management augments the joint property, what he receives as his share is the same as that received by other co-sharers; hence, in order to compensate him for his labours, the others should make special presents to him of Grains, Clothes, Horse, etc., commensurate with his work. Manu (9.207)- [902] 'Among Brothers, if any one, being competent through his own profession, does not desire the joint property, he shall be debarred from his share, after a little has been given to him by way of maintenance.' If a Brother through his own profession', i.e. by his own effort, mis 'competent', - i.e. capable of making a living-should not take his share in the joint property, but relinquish it, it should be made up for him by the other co-sharers, through portions taken from their own respective shares.- This is the meaning of this text, as also of the preceding text of Nārada, says Halāyudha. The Author of the Prakāsha, however, has explained the meaning of this text of Manu to be as follows:-When several coparceners are engaged in carrying on business for acquiring wealth, if some one among them, through laziness and other causes, does not do any work, he shall be debarred from the profit accruing from that business; he shall receive his share of the capital only.t each,--and each one of them has acquired property,—they will receive only the shares of their respective Fathers—(Vibhāgasāra 4.1-4; 4.1–6). In cases where the dead has left only Grandsons and no Sons, the shares assigned to the Grandsons shall be in accordance with their respective Fathers- (Vivādachandra 20.1-6). (A) This is an exception to what has been declared by Vashistha to the effect that the coparcener who has acquired & property by his own effort shall take two shares out of it. The meaning of the present text is that in a case where the accretion to the joint property has been brought about by agricultural and other operations, the division shall be equal and the acquirer shall not receive two shares. The text of Vashistha (Text No. 899) has, therefore, to be explained as pertaining to cases other than those referred to here (p. 481).—(B) Among the Sons of several Brothers, --if the number of these Sons is equal or unequal,—when the Grandfather's property comes to be divided, the Sons of one Brother shall receive that same share which would have been their Father's and each of the Sons shall not have a share allotted to him (Vivādaratnākara, p. 481). (B) This text implies that the assignment of shares depends upon the relative proximity by birth, to the acquirer of the property_(Smrtitattva II, p. 198). (B) In a case where one Brother has left one Son, another has left two Sons, and the third, three Sons, the number of parts into which the property shall be divided by these Sons shall be that of their Fathers, not that of their own (Vyavahāramayūkha, pp. 100-101). * In accordance with the maxim "More work, greater reward', the Brother spoken of should have his share added to by his Brothers, by presenting additional grains and other things-(Smrtichandrikā, pp. 617-618). The meaning is that he should receive something—(4.1-3).-If one of the Brothers is engaged in the maintaining of the family, his part of the business shall be looked after by the other coparceners who will supply him with food and other things, according to his share in the property-(Vibhāgasāra 4.1-7). † When several Brothers are living together, and jointly manage their ancestral property by cultivation and other means, if any one of them does not help in the management, -it is the debarring of such a Brother that has been declared here.- 'He shall be debarred from his share',-i.e. in the net profits of the estate. . . . He, however, is not to be debarred from the main ancestral estate; nor will the profits also be entirely withheld from him; a part of his share of the profits shall be taken by the Brothers as a recompense for their labour, and the remainder shall be given to him by way of maintenance'.-Or' nirvibhājyah' may mean shall be separated, not allowed to live jointly_(Medhātithi).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 191 Kätyāyana- [903] 'If one's own unseparated (Brother) has died, one should make his Son the recipient of the share of that Brother,—which Son may not have got his subsistence from his Grandfather. He shall receive his Father's share from his Uncle or Uncle's Son. This same would be the equitable share of all his Brothers. The Son of that Son shall receive the said share; after that, it shall lapse.' 'Nije', 'one's own',--Brother.—'Tatsutam', --i.e. the Son of the said Brother.-Jivanam', 'subsistence',-i.e. share in the property. What sort of share the Son shall receive is declared by the words 'pitſyan amsham', -his Father's share'. Tatsutaħ', 'the Son of that Son',-i.e. the Great-grandson of the ancestor whose property is being divided. Thus the property of a householder has to be divided into as many parts as there may be his Sons; and the share of any one of these shall be received by his Sons or Grandsons.-Lapse'-i.e. it shall not go to his Great-grandson. This refers to a case where they are all living together (as a joint family). Thus the Wife of the dead Brother cannot receive a share, as she has not been mentioned here.* 6 *Among Brothers'—if any one does not want his share in the Father's property, -to him shall be given some small property by way of maintenance, and he shall be debarred by his Brothers from the property-(Sarvajñanārāyana). If a Brother is able to earn wealth by serving the King and other means, and does not want a share in the joint property,—he shall be given something out of it, by way of maintenance, and separated. If this is done, then the Sons of the debarred Brother would not be able to assert their claims over the property--(Kullūka). If a Brother is able to maintain himself by other means, and does not want his share in the property,—to him something shall be given and the property divided among other Brothers. The giving of something is for the purpose of setting aside the claims of his Sons and other descendants (Rāghavānanda). 'Nirvibhājyah-Debarred from sharing. If a Brother who is entitled to a share in the property, being free from greed, does not accept any share in the property from his Brothers, he should be nirbhājya' from his share; i.e. some little thing shall be given to him by way of maintenance and he shall be separated ;-if he is quite competent, with what he has acquired by his own efforts—(Ramachandra). Svakāt amshāt',-1.e. from his share in what the other Brothers have acquired by their efforts—(Aparārka). If a Brother, who is able to earn wealth by his own efforts, does not want the ancestral property,—then, with a view to avoid future disputes arising from the claims put up by his descendants over his share in the ancestral property,--the other Brothers shall give him something out of that partible property and separate him from the joint family-(Smrtichandrikā, p. 617). If a Brother, relying upon his capacity, has no desire to take anything out of the ancestral property, he shall be given some little thing,--in the shape of & seer of rice, for instance, and then separated; in order to preclude the possibility of claims being set up at some future time by the Son and other descendants of the said Brother-(Dāyabhāga, p. 66; and also Smrtitattva II, p. 171). What is said here is in reference to a case where one of the coparceners is capable of maintaining himself and hence does not desire to take his share in the ancestral property-(Viramitrodaya, p. 572). If a coparcener, being quite competent, renounces his share in the joint property, he should still be given something and be excluded from the property, for the purpose of lending finality to the partition. If this were not done, his Sons would raise disputes in regard to their Father's share in the ancestral property--(Dāyanirnaya 22.1.1). See Yājñavalkya, 2.116. * If a Brother has died before the property has been divided, his Son-who has not received any share in the property from his Grandfather-shall receive his ·192 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Devala [904] 'Among such kinsmen as are living together-divided or undivided, there may be re-partition of the property up to the fourth generation; such is the law.' own Father's share, from his Uncle or Uncle's Son. So also the Son of that Son; after whom it will lapse-(Aparārka, p. 727). What is meant is that, if among the Brothers, one is not alive, his share in the property does not cease to go to his Son-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 482). In a case where the Father, A, dies first, then the Grandfather, B.--the property of B is to be divided among his Sons and Grandsons and Great-grandsons (these latter being the Sons and Grandsons of A),-these latter receiving the share that would have been their Father's—i.e. A's (Dāyanirnaya 21.2–8). If a Son has died before the partition of the property, then the Father of that dead Son shall allot the share of that Son to the Son of this latter. In case he has not himself received a living from his Grandfather-i.e. if his Father's Father has died without allotting the said share to him, then he shall receive his Father's share from the undivided Uncle or Uncle's Son. Similarly also the uterine Brothers of the said Son. It might be argued that~'on the analogy of this rule, the said Son shall receive his Father's share in the latter's Mother's property also ':- But this could not be so; as the text contains the qualification 'undivided', which implies that the inheriting of the property here spoken of is that of that person only with whom division (partition) is possible; and no division is possible between the Mother and the Son.-In case the dead Son has left no Son, but Grandsons, these latter are to receive shares in accordance with the share of their respective Fathers---(Vivāda. chandra 20.1-3). 'Jāvanam'-Inheritance. In the same case, if the dead Brother has several Sons, the same share shall go to all of them.-'Labhēta tatsuto vāpi':-the meaning is that the Son of the Grandson of the original owner of the property shall receive his Father's share, in the absence of his Father. If this Son of the Grandson is also not living, then the next in descent among the descendants of the dead Brother shall not receive any share in the property of his Great-great-grandfather. An objection may be raised—“As a matter of fact, the Great-grandson also cannot inherit the property of his Great-grandfather; as the rule is that only Sons and Grandsons shall inherit the property of the Father and the Grandfather",-True; but just as in the case of the Mother's property, the ownership of the Son is established on the Mother's death, after his offering the funeral cake, by the mere fact of being alive,--so in the same manner the ownership of the Great-grandson over the Great-grandfather's property also would be established. Thus it follows that whoever offers the funeral cake to a dead person--either as Father, or Grandfather, or Great-grandfather,-also inherits his property_(Smrtichandrikā, pp. 647-648). In a case where, between the two Sons of a man, one has died before partition, the Son of that man is there, but he received no property from his Grandfather, before he died,- then the allotment shall be made as laid down in this text. "Labhēta tatsuto vā'; the meaning of this is that the Son of the Grandson of the original owner of the partible property shall receive his Father's share, when this Father is not alive,-after that among his further descendants, the inheriting of the Great-great-grandfather's property ceases --(Parāsħaramādhava. 'Nije-Brother. Tatsutam'-the Brother's Son.-Jīvanan share; this share being the 'Father's share'. - Tatsutaḥ'-the Great-grandson of the person whose property is being partitioned. There is 'lapse', 'parataḥ-i.e. after that; i.e. the Son of the Great-grandson does not receive a share-(p. 575).--Here Kātyāyana has distinctly restricted the inheriting-rights to the Son, the Grandson and the Creat-grandson only_(Vāramitrodaya, p. 643). Kätyāyana here lays down the order of inheritance among the Son, the Grandson, etc.-Tēvanam'-provision for maintenance.--If among Brothers, one has died, then his Son should be given his Father's share. In a case where the dead Brother has more than one Son, their Father's share shall be divided among them.--Similarly the Son of this Son also shall receive the share; the Son of this last, however, shall not receive anything. All this refers to cases where they are all living together- (Smrtitattva II, p. 190). 'Parataḥ-i.e. after the Great-grandson.--On the death of the Father, Grandfather and Great-grandfather,--the Son of the Great-grandson does not receive a share in the property of the last, --if any Son or other nearer descendants are living. pp. 337-338).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 193 That is, the partition of the property may be made only up to the fourth generation including the original proprietor. That this same rule is applicable also to those who have been divided, but are subsequently reunited and live together,-is implied by the qualification ‘living together'.* Vashiştha- [905] 'There is partition of inheritance among Brothers, -as also for childless women till they get a Son.' (Quoted again in Text No. 1031.] The 'women' meant are the Wives of the Brothers. So what is meant is that if there is a widowed Sister-in-law who is expected to be carrying, she also should be provided with a share; when she has been delivered, that share shall go to the Son born to her. In case no Son is born, that share shall revert to her Husband's Brothers and others. But in case the Son, Grandson and Great-grandson-all these are not alive, then the Great-grandson's Son shall certainly receive the property.–This refers to cases where the members concerned have become reunited after partition,—not where there has been no partition at all-(Vyavahāramayūkha, p. 101). * Among un divided kinsmen living jointly, -or among kinsmen divided but reunited,—there can be redistribution of property only among the Brothers, their Sons and Grandsons; it shall cease with the Sons of their Grandsons, who would constitute the fourth degree of descent'-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 482). Among kinsmen who are 'avibhakta'-i.e. with undivided property—and who are 'vibhakta —i.e. descended in different lines and yet belonging to the same rootdynasty of the prime owner of the property, who have lived together 'bhūyaḥ-i.e. for a long time--the right to inherit property shall extend up to the fourth generation, i.e. up to the Great-grandson of the prime owner (Smrtichandrikā, p. 648). Up to the fourth generation'-i.e. extending down to the Son, the Grandson and the Great-grandson.-The meaning is that when there is re-partition among members of a family not divided, or among those who have become reunited after partition, - it shall extend to the Brother, the Brother's Son and the Brother's Grandson (Dāyanirnaya, 2.2-9). There shall be no partition after the fourth degree. This, however, refers to cases where the parties are living together; it does not preclude the allotment of shares to those who have returned from foreign lands; it shall cease with the Sons of the said Grandsons, who would constitute the fourth degree-(Vivādachandra 20.2-5). Shares can be allotted to the direct beir, or (in his absence) to tbe heir's Son, or (in the absence of this latter) to the heir's Grandson; or (in his absence) to the heir's Great-grandson; but nó further; i.e. one is not entitled to receive a share in the property of his Great-great-grandfather-(Parāsharamādhava, p. 438). The meaning is that there can be partition of the property left by the original owner, only among his descendants up to the fourth degree. This same rule applies to the case of those who have been divided and become reunited-(Viramitrodaya, p. 573). In a case where among several Brothers one is not living, his share shall be given to his Son; if this Son also is not living, then the share of the said Brother shall be given to his Grandson; after that the share lapses. --That is, among undivided co-sharors living togevher,-or reunited after separation, there shall be readjustment of shares only in regard to the Brother, his Son and his Grandson. In accordance with this, the Wife also of the Great-grandson only shall be entitled to receive a share_(Smrtitattua II, p. 190). When a man dies after his Son, Grandson and Great-grandson have all died,- his property shall be inherited by his Great-great-grandson; it goes no further.-But this refers to those who have become reunited after separation, not to those who have not separated at all-(Vyavahāramayukha, p. 101). Such women as may have had no child, but had conceived and become widowed before delivery, -are also entitled to share the inheritance, until the Son is born; if a Son is not born, the share reverts to the coparceners;such is the sense of the phrase 'till they get a Son'-(Aparārka, p. 728). If there are women (Brother's Wives, says the Bālambhaķi] on whom signs of pregnancy are quite discernible, the partition shall be postponed till their delivery (Mitākgarā, pp. 655-656). 13 ·194 VIVADACHINTAMAŅI In continuation of the word 'pituħ', 'of the Father', says Brhaspati (25.64) [906] 'On his death, the Mother receives the same share as her Sons; their Mothers are equal sharers with them, and the Girl is entitled to the fourth part of a share.' "On his death_i.. on the Father's death;-the ‘Mother-i.e. the one who has Sons.-Mothers'-i.e. Step-mothers who have no Sons ;-all these latter are equal sharers with them'-i.e. they shall have shares equal to the Sons.-The Sisters of these co-sharers, who are unmarried, receive, for the purposes of their marriage, the fourth part of the share assigned to their Brothers. * Nārada (13.33)— [907] "Those whose sacramental rites have not been performed in due course, -for them those rites shall be performed out of the paternal property.- In case there is no paternal property, those Brothers who have already had their sacraments performed should perform the same for their Brothers, taking what is necessary out of their own shares.' 'Sacramental Rites '-those ending with the Upanayana (Sacred Initiation). 6 If there are women in whom signs of pregnancy are clearly discernible, the division of the property shall be made in expectation of the delivery-(Madanapārijāta, p. 656; also Parashoramadhava, p. 321). Striyah', 'women' stands here for the Brother's Wives. The meaning is that, if any of the Brother's Wives are supposed to be carrying, shares are to be assigned to them also; if no Son is born, the shares shall revert to the Brothers and the woman shall receive maintenance only_(Vīvādaratnākara, p. 483). If any of the Father's or Brother's Wives evince clear signs of pregnancy, then the division of the property should be postponed till the delivery. The phrase 'till she gets a Son' indicates that there is to be postponement in case the signs of pregnancy are clearly discernible,-not if they are not so discernible-Vīramitrodaya, p. 589). If there is no Son, the pregnant woman shall receive a share; in case she does not give birth to a Son, that share shall be resumed by the Widow's Husband's Brothers and other coparceners--(Vibhāgasāra 4.2-6). * What this clearly means is that the Mothers belonging to the several castes shall receive the same share that has been ordained for the Sons belonging to the same caste as themselves; and the Daughter also shall receive the fourth part of the share that has been ordained for the same caste as herself—(Viramitrodaya, p. 582). The term "janani?, 'Mother' (in the first line) stands for one who has Sons of her own; andmätarah', 'Mothers' (second line) for those who have no Sons of their own.—'Turāyamshāthe fourth part of the share ordained for a Son of that caste to which the Girl belongs;this is to be given to her for her marriage. The term "Girl' stands for the unmarried Daughter. On the death of the Father, the Mother with Sons and the Step-mothers of those Sons receive the same share as the Sons; and their unmarried Sisters receive the fourth part of the share of their Brothers—(Vibhāgasāra 4.2–8). The meaning is that, on the death of the Father, the Mother-i.e. the Wife with Sons, -as also the 'Mothers -Step-mothers,mall these receive the same share As the Sons (Dāyanirnaya 20.2-10). † The 'rites' referred to here are those beginning with the 'Birth-rites and ending with the 'Sacred Initiation'-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 493). The meaning is that, if there are Brothers whose sacraments have not been performed by the Father, enough should be set apart out of the paternal property for the performance of those rites. If there is no paternal property, the Brothers shall set aside funds out of their own shares for the performance-(Vivādachandra, 20.2-6). 138 ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 195 Vyāsa- [908] "The sonless Wives of one's Father have been declared to be equal sharers; and the Father's Mothers have all been declared to be equal to the Mother.'* Yajňavalkya (2.123) [909] 'When the Sons are dividing the property after the Father's death, their Mother also receives an equal share.'i In view of the pronouns ‘yēsām' and 'tēsām' (which are both in the Masculine form), this text should be taken as referring to Brothers only-(Dāyabhāga, pp. 70-71). The opinion expressed in the Dāyabhāga is not right; the performance of the Sacraments as essential for the Sisters as for the Brothers; the Masculine Gender in the pronouns should be taken in the impersonal sense ;-or the form may be taken as an 'Ēkashēşa compound (standing for (a) 'Yāsām cha yēşām cha', and (6) Tāsām cha tēšām cha') so as to include both the Masculine and the Feminine (Võra. mitrodaya, p. 584). The sacraments' meant are all, ending with the Initiation-(Vibhāgasära 4.2–10). The sacraments meant here are those ending with the Initiation; such is the implication of the obligatory term 'avashya'; the Marriage being not quite obligatory, as it can be omitted in the case of those who wish to remain Life-long Students. In the case of Sisters however, the marriage being the substitute for Initiation, for women, the performance of the marriage would be obligatory; hence for this also funds should have to be set aside by the Brothers out of their own shares-—(Smrti. chandrikā, p. 628). * What is meant is that, when the property is divided equally among Sons, the sonless Daughter-in-law also should receive the same share.--'Pituħ' is not to te construed with 'patnyah', so that the 'Wife of the Father' cannot be meant. This Daughter-in-law is to receive this equal share only in case she has not got any Strīdhana, ,—as declared in Yájñavalkya 2.26--(Smrtichandrikā, p. 623; or Dāya. bhāga, pp. 67-68). This refers to cases where the Wives have not been given any Strīdhanam (A parārka, p. 730). Sarvāń", 'all', is meant to include the Father's Step-mothers. This text lays down the shares of the Step-mother and the Step-grandmother-(Vyavahāramayūkha, p. 100). In the case of partition made during the Father's lifetime, every one of his Wives is to receive a share equal to that of the Sons; but in the case of partition made after the Father's death, it is only the Mothers of the Sops who are to receive sbares equal to the Sons", while those that have no Sons receive only food and clothing, -Such appears to be the implication of the opinion expressed by many legal digests. But the Author of the Mitākṣarā appears to hold the view that both sets of Wives those with Sons, as also those without Sons--are to receive shares equal to the Sons'. Such also is the view of the Madanaratno-(Vīramitrodaya, p. 579). † The Mother, who has no Strīdhana of her own, shall receive a share equal to that of her Son.-The term “Mother' here stands for the 'Father's Wives'in generale as all these would be equally related to the Father-(Vishvarūpa). After the Father's death, when the Sons are dividing the property,-i.e. at the partition among Sons,—the Mother also shall receive an equal share.-No significance attaches to the Plural Number; so that the meaning is that the share of Mother shall be the same as that of a Son.-The term 'Mother' stands for all the Co-wives (Aparārka). In 2.115, Yājñavalkya (Text No. 881 above) has laid down that, if the Father is making a division of the property during his lifetime, he shall make his Wives equal sharers'; the present text lays down that, even when the division is taking place after the Father's death, his Wives are to receive shares equal to their Sons'; i.e. the Mother's share shall be equal to that of her Son;if no Stridhana has been given to her; in case Strīdhana has been given, she shall receive half-a-share, es declared by Yājñavalkya under 2.145—(Mitāksarā). [The Mother' here includes the Step-mother also-adds the Bālambhatt.]

·196 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI 9 Katyāyana- [910] 'If a certain property had been concealed and is found out afterwards, that also shall be divided equally among the Brothers; and in the absence of the Brothers, among the Sons of the Brothers.' * [911] 'If anything had been taken by any one among themselves,—and if anything had been wrongly divided,-on being found out, it shall be divided in equal shares; so says Bhrgu.' † Where the property is being divided after the Father's death, it is not only the Brothers (Sons of the Father) who shall receive shares, but also the Mother and Step-mothers; the latter being included by the force of the particle 'api'- (Vīramitrodaya-Tīkā on Yājñavalkya). In reality, women are not entitled to any inheritance; all that the present text means is that 'something may be given to the Mother (not a regular share in the property)-(Vivādachandra 21.1-7). What is meant is that on the death of the Father, when the Sons are dividing the property, their Mother shall receive an equal share. This text has to be taken along with two qualifications-(a) 'to one to whom Strādhana has not been given', and (6) 'to one to whom Strādhana has been given, only half a-share shall be given'. Such is the opinion of Vijñānēshvara, Dhāreshvara and others.--Another view is that in the text where 'half-a-share' has been declared as to be given to the Mother to whom Strīdhana has been given, the term 'half' stands for equal parts; so that in a case where the Mother has already got her Strīdhana she shall receive half out of her Son's share; i.e. if the value of the on's share is 10 Niskas, she shall receive 5 Niskas. When the Father and Son are making a division, among themselves, of the Grandfather's property,--the Wife of that Grandfather shall receive an equal share, if she has a Son; if she has no Son, she shall receive only what may have been given to her as a loving gift, and she shall not be entitled to any share in the property. In this Grandfather's property, the 'Mother'-i.e. the Grandfather's Daughter-in-law--shall not receive a share; she shall receive only ornaments and such things. Because both these texts-(a) 'If the Father is making equal sbares, his Wives shall be made equal sharers', and (6) when Sons are dividing the property after the Father's death, their Mother shall receive an equal share-are meant to apply to such properties as belonged primarily to the Father,--i.e. such property as the Father had inherited as his share or had acquired as gifts—(Madanapārijāta, PP. 663-664). What is meant is that at the time of partition, the sonless Widow should receive a share; as each such Widow has to be supported—(Vibhāgasāra 5.1-2). Though there are several texts which speak of women as being 'not entitled to inheritance', yet they are not inconsistent with the present text; because amsha', 'share', is not the same thing as 'inheritance'; e.g. members of trading corporations receive 'shares', but that is not `inheritance --(Smrtichandrikā, p. 623). This share shall be given only in cases where the Mother has had no Stridhana given to her; if it had been given, she shall receive only half--(Parăsharamadhava, p. 341). This share is to be given only in case no Strīdhana had been given; where it had been given, she shall receive only 'half'. 'Half' does not mean exactly half, but that much which, along with her Strīdhana, would make her property equal to her Son's. The term 'Mother' here stands for janani, one who has given birth to Sons; hence it cannot include the sonless Step-mother; the word, used only once, cannot stand for both the primary and the secondary Mothers-(Viramitrodaya, * In a case where, at the time of partition, some one had concealed some property deceitfully, creating the impression that it belonged to a stranger, but on investigation, it is afterwards found that it really forms part of the joint property, then it shall be divided equally. If, by the time, the original coparceners have died, it shall be divided among their Sons_(Smrtichandrikā, p. 714). + See Text No. 990 where this same text is again quoted and commented upon. "In equal shares-ie. in shares equal to the previous shares,--says Vivādachintamani itself later on when dealing with the same text on p. 224 of the printed text. 'On being found'-i.e. that which had been stolen or lost at the time of partition and which has been recovered after the partition-(Vivādachandra 23.2-5). p. 578).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 197 [912] 'When a man has gone away to a foreign country, leaving a joint estate, his share should certainly be given to his descendant when he comes back; be he the third or the fifth, or even the seventh, in descent, he shall receive the share belonging to him by right of succession,-on his birth and family-name being ascertained '-(Byhaspati 25.24). This refers to a man who had gone away to and has returned from foreign lands.* Again [913] 'He whom natives of the place and neighbours know to be the owner,- to the descendant of that man must the landed property be surrendered by his kinsmen whenever he comes forward.'t SECTION (C)--PERSONS PRECLUDED FROM INHERITANCE Says Brhaspati- [914] 'A Son, even though born of a Mother of the same caste as the Father,—if he is devoid of good qualities,-is not entitled to inherit the Father's property; it has been declared to belong to those of his Sapindast who are learned in the Veda.'s *Wrongly divided'-i.e. divided in unequal shares ; in a manner contrary to law-(Smrtichandrikā, p. 714). What has been divided unequally, in a manner contrary to law, should be equalised.--Inasmuch as this text lays down the re-partition of that only which had been deceitfully kept back, it follows that there can be no re-partition of what has been already properly divided-(Paräsharamadhava, p. 383). * Anyonyāpahrtam-taken by each man according to his own wish.-Durvibhalctam'-_inequitably divided -(Vibhāgassāra 5.1-4).- The coparcener who has been enjoying the property shall not be required to make good what he has enjoyed. That such is the sense is clear from the term 'in equal parts -(Vibhāgasāra 12.1-9). * The present text refers to cases where the person concerned has been away in foreign lands, or living in inaccessible places—(Vivādaratnākara). In & case where the man has relinquished his co-residence in the family-house and also the country itself, and has gone to live in a far-off country, -and during his absence, his kinsmen, not knowing of his existence, have divided all the property among themselves ;—if this man subsequently returns home, his share should be given to him. In this case, the ignorance of the existence of the man being due to his own remoissness, no other alternative has been mentioned; that is why the text has added the term 'certainly'.-Similarly if the person returning after partition is a Grandson or a still lower descendant of the original owner who had migrated, he is entitled to a share in the ancestral property only-(Smrtichandrikā, pp. 712- 713). The meaning is that, if a member of the joint family has returned after a long residence abroad, he shall receive his share in the property, if he is recognised by the relative of the place and others living in the neighbourhood-(Dāyabhāga, These texts are not authoritative (Vyavahāramayükha, p. 134). This refers to one who has gone abroad to foreign lands—(Vibhāgasära 5.1-6). of In a case where the man has turned up after partition, or even before partition,--and proceeds to claim his property, he is entitled to receive it only if he establishes his claim by means of evidence temporal as well as super-physical, - not otherwise(Smytichandrikā, p. 713). The text reads "tatsapindah', which means as above. Some digests read ‘tatpindadāḥ', which has been explained as 'those who offer the funeral cake to the Father'; or 'those who supply food and clothing to the disqualified Son'. § 'Aguņavān'-devoid of all such qualities as would be conducive to the material and spiritual welfare of the Father—(Smrtichandrikā, p. 631). p. 133).

·198 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI Manu (9.214) [915] ‘All such Brothers as are addicted to evil deeds are not entitled to inherit property.' Vikarmasthäh'-addicted to acts against the law.* Shankha- [916] 'Inheritance, Funeral Cake and Water-offerings become precluded from the Outcast.' That is, the man who has become an outcast'-i.e. been excommunicated by his relations on account of some extremely reprehensible vice,-- ceases to to entitled to (a) inherit the Father's property, (b) to perform Shrāddha, and (c) to make water-offerings.† Manu (9.201-203) [917] '(A) Eunuchs and Outcasts, the congenially blind or deaf, the insane, the idiot or the dumb, -as well as those with deficient organs,--are not entitled to shares.- ' A guņavān’-not possessing the qualities indicated in the saying 'A true Son delivers the Father from good as well as bad debts',-Tatpindadāḥ' (v.le for 'tatsapindāḥ')—those who provide food and clothing for the disqualified (and disinherited) Son-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 487). This refers to cases where the person concerned is entirely devoid of all good qualities-(Vibhāgasära 5.1-10). 'Tatpindadāḥ'-those who offer the funeral cake to the owner of the property; that is why the epithet 'learned in the Veda' has been added.--It means "those who provide food and clothing to the disqualified Son'--according to the Ratnākara. Even on this view, the persons should be such as would offer the funeral cake to the owner of the property, -i.e. the dead Father-(Smrtitattva II, p. 172). Vikarmasthāḥ-doing such acts as are forbidden-Medhātithi);—such as Brāhmaṇas addicted to acts like Cattle-tending, Serving a Shüdra and so forth (Sarvajñanārāyana);-most of whose acts are such as have been forbidden- (Nandana). Such Brothers as, though not quite outcasts, are addicted to such evil deeds as Gambling, Associating with a courtesan and so forth, do not deserve to inherit property-Kullūka). Those who are addicted to Gambling, Drinking and such acts get only maintenance, not shares in the property--(Rāghavānanda). Such Brothers are not entitled to shares in the property-(Rāmachandra). Vikarmasthāḥ-entirely addicted to such acts as are forbidden. 'Dhanam' such property as is partible (Smytichandrikā, p. 631). Vilarmasthāḥ -addicted to Gambling, etc.; according to others, always engaged in causing injury to the family'-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 486). The meaning is that such persons are debarred from inheritance as are not entitled to the performance of Shrauta and Smārta rites and are also addicted to evil deeds—(Vīramitrodaya, p. 713). Here Manu declares that a misbehaving Son is not entitled to inheritance if there are other Sons who are better qualified-(Vyavahāramayūkha, p. 164). "Vikarmasthāḥ --addicted to evil and forbidden acts-(Vibhāgasāra 5.7-11). † Apapātritah'- is the person who, having committed a degrading sin, has been excommunicated by his relatives.—'Rktha' is paternal property, as also the property of an Agnate, for one who stands in the relation of a Son to the deceased person(A parārka, p. 720). 'Apapātritaḥ-is one who has become excommunicated by his relatives on account of his having committed a heinous crime, such as injuring the King and the like (Vivādaratnākara, p. 486). One who has been excommunicated by his relatives disgusted with his harmful behaviour and other defects-(Vivādachandra 21.1-2).- Whose water has been separated'-i.e. who has been excommunicated- (Tiramitrodaya, p. 713, where the text is attributed to Apastamba). Apapātritah--one who, by reason of such heinous crimes as striking the King and the like, has been excommunicated by his relatives ; such a person is not entitled even to offer the funeral cako.(Vibhāgasāra 5.1-11). < 6 ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 199 [918] '(B) But it is fair and proper that the wise man should give even to all these food and clothing to the best of his ability, as long as they live; not giving this, he would become degraded. [919] '(C) If the Eunuch and the rest should somehow happen to have a longing for a Wife, the child of such of them as hare issue entitled to inheritance.' 'Nirindriyāḥ'-devoid of hands or feet or such other limbs. The upshot of the whole is that those persons are precluded from inheritance who are incapable of performing the Shrauta and Smärta acts (duties prescribed in Shruti and Smrti).-The Sons of these, however, with the exception of the Son of the Outcast, — -are entitled to inheritance.* ** (B)-'Food and clothing'-which are necessary for the keeping of the body. The implication is that they should be provided with enough to enable to engage servants, etc.; specially because, he case of the blind and the rest, living would be impossible without a servant. For those again to whom marriage is permitted, the provision made should include that for the Wife also.-(C) When there is desire to marry, they shall marry; and the child born of such marriage,--whether a Son or a Daughter-shall have a share in the property.-The phrase 'and the rest' does not include the Outcast and the like.-Or the text may be taken as applying to the case where the man has become insane, or otherwise disabled, after having been 'initiated' and 'married'.-The older writers have found in this rule something that is usefully applicable to the case of such marriages as are contracted for purely religious purposes; so that for the Eunuch also,—who is entitled to perform the acts prescribed in the Smrtis—it is only right that there be marriage, even in the absence of sexual desire; as for the rites prescribed in the Shrută, they can be performed only in the Shrauta fire, which can be installed only by one who has already got a Son; so that the Eunuch could never be entitled to the performance of these-(Medhatithi). Klībah'-one whose impotency is incurable.- Patita',--one who has committed a heinous crime and has not performed the expiatory penance.—'badhira'-suffering from congenital deafness.- Insanity and the rest are meant to be such as are incurable.—'Jada'-one whose organs of action are not under his control.-- 'Nirindriyāḥ'—those unable to have any sensations.-(C) 'Arthitā -implies connection with Wife.—Utpannatantūnām'—when children are born to them. Even those Brothers who have become separated before the birth of such children should give to these children the share that would have been their Father's. As regards the Eunuch and the Outcast, if these have been already married, then, on the birth of their Ksētraja Son, this latter becomes entitled to a share in the inheritancamen (Sarvajñanārāyana). (A) The impotent, the outcast, one suffering from congenital blindness or deafness, the insane, the mad, the idiot. the dumb, the cripple, the lame or one whose organs are deficient, these do not receive shares in the property; they are entitled to only food and clothing.---(B) The man who does inherit the property, if he knows the law, should provide food and clothing to these, throughout his life, to the best of his ability.-(C) 'Kathanchana'—this implies that 'the Eunuch and the rest' are not fit for marriage; if somehow there arises in them a desire for marriage, and they do marry, then, on the birth of their Kșētraja Son, and in the case of others, their regular Sons,—these become entitled to the share in the property --(Kullūka). (A) 'Jada'-one devoid of ambition.-Nirindriyāḥ'—those without hands and such limbs. (B) All these eight persons have got to be supported; this bas been declared by Yājñavalkya also.-(O) If the Eunuch and the rest have a desire to obtain children, and marry for that purpose,-if they do have issue, then their Kșētraja or other Sons become entitled to inheritance (Rāghavānanda). (C) The reference is to the Kșētraja one -(Nandana). The texts describe those not entitled to partition. Those born blind or deaf are not entitled to any share in the property.—'Unmatta? —one who suffers from nervous trembling and the like, from the obsession of planets, or from the disorders of the three humours of the body, Wind, Bile and Phlegm.—Jadaone whose mind is deranged and who is unable to ascertain what is good for himself. Nirindriyāḥ-those who have lost an organ through disease. (C) · Utpannatantú.

·200 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Yājñiavalkya (2.140) [920] '(A) The Outcast and his Son, the Impotent, the Lame, the Insane, the Idiot, the Blind, and one suffering from an incurable disease, have no shares; they have got to be supported.' causes. nām'-i.e. of the Sons. For the Eunuch, the only Son possible is the Kșētraja; for others, .body-born' Son also is possible-(Ramachandra). Inasmuch as the Eunuch and the rest are spoken of as 'having Wife', it means that their Upanayana has been performed. It will not be right to argue that, 'the text C refers to the case where the man has already married and subsequently become struck by blindness and the other disabilities'. Because, if that were so, then the born blind' should not have been mentioned in the preceding text (A).- It may be that the blind and the rest, not having gone through the ceremony of the Upanayana and marriage, are not entitled to the performance of sacrifices; but they are perfectly entitled, like the Shüdra, to the performance of works of public utility. For this reason the fact of their not being entitled to inheritance is due, not their being not entitled to perform the acts, but to the authoritative declaration to that effect in the texts themselves (Aparārka). (A) 'Nirindriyāḥ-those who, as a result of some disease, have lost a senseorgan.-These, the Eunuch and the rest, do not share in the property; they have to be supported with food, clothing and other gifts.--(B) 'Atyantam'-throughout life. The fact of their being not entitled to inheritance would be right only if it referred to cases where the blindness or other disabilities have appeared before, not after, partition. Even after partition, if the disability is cured by medication, the person does become entitled to his share in the inheritance. In the terms 'patita' and the rest, no significance attaches to the Masculine Gender; so that, even in the case of Wife, Daughter, Mother and others,-if they happen to be blind and so forth,—they are not entitled to a share in the property-(Mitākṣarā, pp. 836–838). (A) 'Nirindriyāḥ'-Those who have lost a sense-organ through disease or such These are not to receive shares in the property, but have to be supported. - Atyantam', -as long as they live. These persons are not to share in the partition; not so if, though before partition, they suffered from the said disabilities, yet, after the partition, they got rid of them by medication,-or if they have performed the necessary expiation. In this latter case, the person concerned becomes entitled to a share in the property, in accordance with the rule that if a Son is born, after partition, of a Wife of the same caste as oneself, he is entitled to inheritance'.- In the terms 'patita' and the rest, no significance attaches to the Masculine Gender; hence, Mother, Wife, Daughter and the like also, if suffering from disabilities, are not entitled to shares in the property.-The Eunuch and the like are themselves excluded, not their Sons and others, if these latter are not themselves suffering from any disability-Madanapārijāta, p. 682). (A) In the compound jātyandha', the term “jāte' connotes the incurability of the blindness, not that it must be congenital.- Jada'-one who cannot discriminate between others and himself.—'Nirindriya'-the lame and the like, who are not entitled to the performance of the religious rites prescribed in Shruti and Smrti.-(B) 'Sarvēsām'--of the Eunuch and the rest. Atyantam'-as long as they live.--(C) In the compound 'Klābādīnām'-'of the Eunuch and the rest the Klība, Eunuch, is meant to be included, as he is absolutely unable to beget a child. The Author of the Prakasha, however, holds that 'Klíba' here stands for such impotence or incapacity to beget children as is due to a curable defect. Tantu' is issue(Vivādaratnākara, p. 488). "Jadamūka'-one who is dumb while being an idiot. Eunuch-one who remains impotent even after medication. Some people hold that the compound 'Klībādinām' is not meant to include the Klība himself-(Vivādachandra 21.1-2). Here Manu mentions those who are not entitled to inheritance--'Nirindriya'- whose organs have become defective.-'Atyantam'-throughout life-(Parāsharamādhava, pp. 366-367). 'Nirindriya'-one who has lost his generative organ through disease, and hence differs from the Eunuch. Some persons have explained this term to mean "persons devoid of hands, feet and such limbs'.—These, the Eunuch and the rest, do not receive shares in the inheritance, but they have to be supported with food and clothing.. (B) 'Atyantam'-throughout life. Of the outcast and the person who has committed a minor offence, the disability to inherit lasts only till the ·INHERITANCE- PARTITION 201 That is, the man suffering from Leprosy and such incurable diseases is not entitled to inheritance. [921] '(B) The Body-born and Soil-born Sons of these, if free from defects, are to receive shares in the property '-(Yājña. 2.141). [922] (C) The Daughters also of these should be supported till they have been made over to their Husbands :-(l'ajña. 2.141). The Body-born Sons of the Outcast-meant are those born before the man became an Outcast; while those of the others may have been born even after (the appearance of the disabilities).-Sutāḥ --Daughters-are to be supported—if they are free from defects-i.e. are well-behaved.* requisite expiation has not been performed. If, through arrogance, they do not perform the penance, they become degraded.--This disability to inherit applies to these only if they have had the defects before partition; after the partition has been made-if the defects appear, the shares that they have already received cannot be taken away from them; as there is no authority for such a course.--If, subsequently, the defect is removed, the persons become entitled to recente shares; so says Vijñānēshvara; and this is the right view, because the disability to inherit was based entirely on the presence of the defect; and the case of these persons would stand on the same footing as that of the Son born to one (from a Wife of his own caste) after partition, who is entitled to inherit.-In the terms 'patitah' and the rest, no significance attaches to the Masculine Gender; just as in the sentence 'Brāhmarona surām pibēt'; hence the disability mentioned in the present text would apply to the case of the Wife, Daughter and others who have been declared entitled to inheritance.-Tantu'-Child-(Viramitrodaya, pp. 708–710). 'Nirindriya'-one whose olfactory and other organs have been destroyed by lisease and such other causes-(Smrtichandrikā, pp. 6. 9, 632). 'Nirindriya'-devoid of the olfactory and other organs.—These disunherited persons should be supported by those who have got the property--(Tyarahāramayūkha, pp. 163, 164). Tantu'-child.-It might be argued that the impotent person can have no generative potency,—and that the dumb and the rest, not having read the Veda, and not having their Upanayana performed, would be outcasts,--and hence there could be no possibility of these being properly married.—This cannot be right; because a Son (Ksētraja) may be born to the impotent man with the help of another man; and the rest, even though they may not have their Upanayana performed, would be only like Shūdras, and not outcasts; hence all these persons could have Sons, 'body-born' as well as "Kșētraja', and these Sons should be entitled to inheritance(Dāyabhāga, p. 104). * (A) The impotent man and the rest have no share in the property; but they are entitled to maintenance.----Klība'—Eunuch, one wanting in virility.--Tatsutaḥ (v.1. 'tajjaħ')-born of the Outcast; though the Son of the Outcast is also an Outcast, yet he has to be mentioned separately; otherwise according to the next text (921), the Son of the Outcast would be entitled to inherit.—'Pangu'-Lame.- Unmattaka' -suffering from insanity, which is a kind of disease. "Jada'-Tdiot.--'Andha'- Blind. - Achikitsyaroga one suffering from an incurable disease. The term ādya' (and the rest') is meant to include those others who have been mentioned in other Smrti-texts.—(B) •Ēşām'-of the Ernuch and the rest; the Aurasa and Ksētraja Sons receive the inheritance, if they are free from such defects as being an Outcast and the like; the impotent man obtains childrer by means of medication. -(C) The Daughters also of these have to be maintained till they are married.- These have to be maintained even though born of Outcasts-(Aparārka). Tatsutaḥ-i.e. the Son born of the Outcast.-- Unmattan obsessed by evil planets.—“Jadaḥ'-permanently devoid of intelligence.„Achikitsyaroga'-suffering from Leprosy or such other foul and incurable disease. The particle 'cha' serves to include the deaf and the rest mentioned in other Smytis. Some people have held the view that the lame and the rest stand for all those who are not entitled to the performance of the Agnihotra and other rites. But this is not right, because wealth is meant for the man; and because the illiterate person, who is not entitled to perform any rites, has been declared to be fit for holding wealth; as is clear from such texts as -The learned shall not give of his self-acquired property to the unlearned, unless he wishes to do so', and 'the unlearned shall divide the property 2 ·202 VIVÄDACHINTAMANI [923] . The sonloss Wives of these should also be maintained, if they are well-behaved; if they are ill-behaved and hostile, they should be turned out'-(Yājñavalkya 2.142). equally'. Thus the fact that they are not entitled to inheritance rests upon the express prohibition in the texts themselves, not on the ground of their being incapable of performing sacrifices. Or their disability to inherit may be regarded as being due to their existent disease, etc., being indicative of heinous sins committed in past lives. The long-established custom is that even the blind and the rest, if they are not Outcasts, do inherit the property that belonged to their Grandfather and other ancestors. The conclusion therefore is that the text only reiterates the propriety of the course that these persons should not use the property for any other purpose save their maintenance (Vishvarūpa). (A) Here we have an exception to the general rule regarding the Son, the Wife and other members of the joint family inheriting the property of the deceased.- “Klība'-one who is neither male nor female.-'Patita'-one who has committed a heinous crime. like killing a Brāhmaṇa.-'Tatsutaḥ -Son born of the Outcast. 'Pangu'-Lame.—'Unmattaka'-oppressed by insanity due, either to the disorders of Bile, Wind and Phlegm, or to the obsession of planets.-"Jada'- of disordered mind; who is unable to determine what is good and what is bad for himself.- "Andha'-deprived of eyesight.--Achikitsyaroga'-suffering from some incurable disease, like Consumption. The term “ādya' includes the following-one who has taken to another life-stage, one who is inimical to his Father, one who has committed minor sins, the deaf, the dumb, the person deficient in sense-organs. These have been mentioned by Vashistha and Nārada,-also by Manu (9.201).--These persons (the impotent and the rest) have no shares !, --i.e. they do not receive the inheritance; they have only got to be maintained by being provided with food and clothing. If they are not maintained, the person who has got the property becomes liable to be treated like an Outcast, as declared by Manu (9.202, Text No. 918 above). -This disability to inherit would be right only in cases where the defects (to which the disability is due) have been present from before the time of partition,-not if they appear after the partition. Even after the partition, if the defect is removed by medication, the man does become entitled to the inheritance.--In the terms patitaḥ' and the rest, no significance attaches to the Masculine Gender; hence the Wife, the Daughter, the Mother and other females also should be regarded as not entitled to inheritance if they have any of the disabling defects enumerated above. (B) The assertion of this disability of the impotent and other persons might give rise to the notion that the Sons also of these persons are debarred from inheritance; it is with a view to this that the text (B) has been added. Of these persons, the Body-born and Soil-born Sons, if free from defects,-i.e. such defects as constitute disabilities in the matter of inheritance,—receive shares in the property. In the case of the impotent person, only the Ksētraja, 'Soil-born', Son is possible; in that of others, the 'Body-born' also. The mention of these two excludes the other kinds of Sons.-(C) A special rule is laid down in regard to the Daughters of the said persons: until they have their marriage-sacrament performed, the Daughters are to be maintained; the particle cha' implies that the performance of the sacraments is essential-(Mitākşarā). (A) The term'atha' includes the Deaf, and 'ādya' includes the Dumb, one hostile to his Father and others mentioned in Manu 9.201..Tatsutaḥ-Son of the Outcast. 'Jada'--one of low intelligence.--(B) The impotent and the rest having been precluded from inheritance, it would seem as if their Sons and Daughters were also precluded; hence the texts (B) and (C) have been added. The 'Soil-born' Son of the impotent man, and the 'Body-born' Son of others --if both of these are themselves free from the disabling defects,-do become sharers in the inheritance.-(C) The 'Soil-born' Daughters of the impotent and others, who are not sexless, should be as carefully maintained by the property-holders as their own Daughters, until they have been given away to their Husbands.--The particle 'cha' (in B) implies that the Daughters should also have their sacraments performed—(Vāramitrodaya- Likā on Yājña.). (A) Should be supported !-by those who have inherited the property; Vişnu having declared that they have to be supported by those who have received the property. (B) What is said in regard to the Ksētraja Son must be taken as applicable to the Dvāpara and earlier ages; as such a Son has been forbidden in the Kali age.- Sutāḥ'-Daughters ;-'ēsām' of those who have been declared to be not entitled to inheritance.-Shall be supported by those who have shared the 6 ·INHERITANCE PARTITION 203 Of these'-of the impotent and the rest.--Hostile'-inclined to ad. minister poison, etc.* as ancestral property of the disinherited persons. The Daughters shall be maintained in the same manner as their disinherited Fathers themselves, but not throughout life, only till they have been married—(Smịtichandrikā, p. 631). (A) "Tatsutaḥ -Son of the Outcast who has not performed the expiatory penance.-'Unmattaka'-suffering from the incurable insanity due to the disorders of the humours and the obsession of evil planets.—'Jada'--of defective intelligence, incapable of distinguishing Right and Wrong: -'Achikitsyaroga'--suffering from an incurable serious disease. Adya' stands for one hostile to the Father' and others mentioned by Nārada (p. 681).-(B) For the impotent person, only a Kșētraja Son is possible; for others, both Aurasa and Kșētraja. The special mention of these two implies that the other kinds of Sons are not entitled to inheritance; but the Putrikā, the Appointed Daughter, becomes included under the 'Aurasa'. she has been declared to be 'equal to the Aurasa'.-(C) The Daughters are to be maintained till their marriage-(Madanapārijāta, p. 683). Tatsutah'—the Son of the Outcast, born after he became an Outcast.-'Jada' of deficient intelligence.Achikitsyaroga'-suffering from an incurable disease, like Leprosy.-The term 'ôdya' includes those others who have been declared by other sages to be 'not entitled to inheritance', but entitled to maintenance. The impotent, etc. having been precluded, it might be thought that their Sons are precluded; hence the next text is added-(Vivādaratnākara, pp. 488-489). The 'Son of the Outcast' meant here is the one born after the man became an Outcast.—Achikitsyaroga?—incurable diseases like Leprosy--(Vivādachandra 21.1-4). (A) The term 'adi' includes the dumb and the rest.--These do not receive any share in the inheritance; they are only to be supported with food and clothing. ---(B) Of these disinherited persons, only the Ksētraja and Aurasa Sons shall receive shares,—not the Adopted and other kinds of Sons.-(C) The Daughters of the disinherited persons shall be maintained till their marriage, and they should be married also-(Parāsharamadhava, pp. 366-367). (A) In the case of the impotent and the blind, if they have been so from birth, they are not entitled to any share; if the disability has come in later, then, on their being cured by medication, they become entitled to receive shares in the property out of what may have been left after the settlement of all assets and liabilities.—The term "ädya' includes the person who has entered another lifestage, one who is hostile to his Father, one who has committed a minor sin, the deaf, the dumb, one who is deficient in his organs, mentioned by Närada and Vashistha.—(B) Even though the impotent and the rest are not entitled to inherit, their Sons are not debarred from inheritance.-Free from defects '-i.e. those defects which have been indicated as bars to inheritance.--For the impotent, only the Ksētraja Son is possible; for others, the Aurasa also. These two kinds of Sons have been specially mentioned with a view to exclude the other kinds-(Piramitrodaya, pp. 710–711). (A)-Panguh'-one who cannot walk on his legs.--Even though these are debarred from inheritance, they have got to be maintained,--with the exception of the Outcast and his Son, who do not deserve to be maintained; as has been declared by Dēvala.-The 'Klība' has been defined by Kätyāyana as one whose urine gives out no froth, whose excreta sinks in water and whose penis is devoid of erection and semen' (p. 102).—(B) Of the persons mentioned, the Kșētraja and Aurasa Sons that may be there,-—who are free from impotence and other defects—are to receive shares in accordance with the shares of their Fathers.-(C) Their Daughters have to be maintained till they are married-(Dāyabhāga, p. 104). Persons debarred from inheritance have been enumerated here.--If, even after partition, the impotence and other disabilities are cured, the persons receive their shares; just like persons born after partition---(Vyavahāramayukha, pp. 162-163). One who is suffering from an incurable disease is not entitled to inheritance. The legitimate Sons of these men-born before, not after, their becoming Outcast, etc.- are entitled to inherit property; those born after are entitled to mere maintenance (Vibhāgasära 5.2–9). * Their married and childless Wives should also be maintained, if they are wellbehaved; if they are misbehaved, or inimical to their Brother-in-law and other relatives, they should be turned out of the house (Aparārka). This text lays down the special rule regarding the Wives of the impotent men and others. These Wives, 'if they are well-behaved'-i.e. of good character,— ·204 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI Nārada (13.21)- [924] 'One who is hostile to his Father, an Outcast, one Impotent, one Excommunicated,-such Sons should not receive a share, even though Body-born; how then could the Soil-born ones receive it?' 'Hostile to his Father',-i.e. one who, while the Father was alive, used to beat him and ill-treat him in other ways; and after his death is not inclined to perform the Shraddha and other rites.* p. 489). should be maintained; the ill-behaved have to be turned out; those who are inimical are also to be turned out; but these have to be maintained, if they are not ill-behaved, and the mere fact of their being 'hostile' will not deprive them of maintenance (Mitākṣarā). The Wives of these impotent and other persons,-those that had been married to them before their impotency or other disabilities had become definitely known, --if they are well-behaved, -of good character-are to be maintained. If they are ill-behaved, or very hostile, they should be turned out of the house. The particle cha' includes such women as are addicted to drinking and such vices; and the particle “ēva' is meant to preclude the notion that such women should be maintained -(Viramitrodaya-?īkā). Of the said disinherited persons, the married Wiveg, --if they are well-behaved, shall be maintained by those who have taken the ancestral property of those inherited, in the same manner in which they maintained these men themselves. In case they are ill-behaved, or are hostile to their supporter, they should be turned out of the house; but those turned out on account of 'hostility' only should be maintained_(Smitichandrikā, p. 634). The childless Wives of these men, if well-behaved-of pure character,--shall be maintained; those who are ill-behaved should be turned out; and those 'hostile' shall also be turned out, but shall receive maintenance; as these are not tacited with misconduct (Madanapārijāta, p. 683). 'Hostile'.-The 'hostility' meant here is the proneness to administer poison and inflict such serious injuries, not mere quarrelsomeness~(Vivādaratnākara, Their Wives, if well-behaved, shall be maintained as long as they live- (Paräsharamadhava, p. 367). Their childless Wives shall be maintained as long as they live-(Dāyabhāga, p. 104). If the women are “ill-behaved', they have to be turned out, without maintenance; if they are only hostile', they have to be turned out, but should receive maintenance (Vyavahāramayūkha, p. 166), 'Hostile'-bent upon depriving him of his life by poison and such other means -(Vrbhāgasära 5.2-9). * 'Pitydvit'-one who causes injury to his father--(Aparārka). Apapātritaḥ--one who has been declared to be 'unfit for association', i.e. who has been expelled by his relatives--(Smrtichandrikā, p. 629). * Pitrdvi'-one who bears ill-will towards his Father;-such ill-will culminating in killing him, while alive,--and in not making the water and other offerings to him when dead.—Apapātritah'-excommunicated on account of some such crime as killing the King. The Author of the Prakāsha, however, has read 'aupapātikah' for 'apapātritaḥ, and explained it as 'one guilty of minor offences -(Vivādaratnākara, p. 489). The 'hostility to the Father would consist in beating him during lifetime and in not making the water and other offerings to him after death-(Vivādachandra 21.1-9). 'Apapātritaḥ'-excommunicated by his relatives on account of such heinous crimes as hostility to the King; so says Madana. But the right reading is apayātritah', meaning one who has undertaken a forbidden journey', such as going to foreign lands by sea on boats; association with such a traveller being forbidden in Kali-age. The other reading (apapātritaḥ) cannot be right as no texts have prescribed 'excommunication' as a penalty for hostility to the King- (Vyavahāramayukha, p. 163). 'Pitrdvit' mone who made his Father unhappy by causing him hurt; and who. has ceased to offer Shrāddha, etc.—(Vibhāgasāra 5.2-10). 3 ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 205 6 [925] 'Those afflicted with chronic and acute diseases, -also the Idiot, the Insane and the Lame,--are to be maintained by the family; but their Sons are entitled to shares in the property '-(Nārada 13.22). Chronic'- such as Consumption.-'Acute'-e.g. Leprosy.--'Idiotone incapable of discriminating right and wrong. Dēvala- [926] '(A) On the death of the Father,--the Impotent, the Leprous, the Insane, the Idiot and the Blind, the Outcast, the Child of the Outcast, and the Religious Hypocrite are not entitled to shares in the inheritance. ‘(B) All these, except the Outcast, are to be provided with Food and Clothing.-(C) Their Sons, if free from defects, shall receive their Father's share in the inheritance.' On the death of the Father'--this is stated only by way of illustration.- Religious hypocrite'-one who is in the habit of excessive posing.–Defects i.e. those that debar them from inheritance.* 8 6 * 'Mſtē pitari'-even on the death of the Father.—*Lingī' one who is too much addicted to practising religious hypocrisy-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 490). (B) For the Outcast, no maintenance need be provided.-(C) The Son of the disinherited man, if he is himself free from disabling defects, is entitled to inheritance -(Vivādachandra 21.1-6). (A) On the death of the Father, the impotent and the rest do not share in the property.—Lingi'—the Life-long Hermit; the Hermit meant here is one belonging to one of the heretical sects.—The phrase 'on the Father's death' is meant to indicate the time of partition; so that even when the Father is making a division of the property during his lifetime, the impotent and other Sons do not receive any shares in the property. That is why Āpastambha has declared—“During his lifetime, the Father shall divide the property equally among his Sons, excluding the Inapotent, the Insane and the like (p. 629).—(B) Here we have an exception to the general rule that 'all disinherited persons shall receive maintenance'; the 'Son of the Outcast' is also to be included under the exception, as he also is an Outcast' (p. 632).—(C) 'Tatputrāḥ', - Sons of the persons debarred from inheritance. - Free from defects -i.e. from such as are disabilities to inheritance.-Father's inheritance'-i.e. the Grandfather's property.--This text should not be taken to mean that the Son of the Outcast also would be entitled to inherit the Grandfather's property, because the Outcast's Son becomes excluded on account of the 'defect' that he, being the Son of an Outcast, is himself an 'Outcast'-(Smrtichandrikā, p. 633). (B) The Outcast is not entitled to maintenance. The term 'Outcast' includes the Outcast's Son also.-(C) The Sons of those debarred from inheritance are entitled to inherit. Of those who have been debarred from inheritance, only the Body. born and Soil-born Sons,-if free from defects--impotence and other disabilitiesare entitled to inheritance, ,-no other Adopted and other kinds of Sons—(Parāsharamādhava, p. 367). (A) All those debarred from inheritance are to be maintained, except the Outcast and the Outcast's Son; 'Lingī the Wandering Mendicant, etc. The term “Outcast' includes the Outcast's Son also, as the latter also is an Outcast by reason of being born of the Outcast-(Dāyabhāga, p. 102). 'Linga'—the Wandering Mendicant, etc.--The term 'Outcast' includes the Outcast's Son also, as he also is an 'Outcast' by reason of having been born of an Outcast-(Vīramitrodaya, p. 711). Jada? one who has no enthusiasm for the performance of religious duties.- 'Andhaḥ'--the congenitally blind.—Lingi'--one who has assumed the guise of an Ascetic-(Smrtitativa II, p. 172). Lingi'-one who is wearing a forbidden sign-(Vyavahāramayūkha, p. 165). 'Death' is mentioned only by way of illustration.--'Lingī ma religious hypocrite :-(Vibhagasāra 6.1-3).

·206 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI Vashistha (17.52)— [927] 'Those who have entered other Life-stages have no shares.' *Other Life-stages'-i.e. other than the Householdership.* Katyāyanam [928] '(a) The Son of a woman married in contravention of the sanctioned order, (6) the Son born to a man of a Wife belonging to the same gotra as himself, and (c) the Apostate from Renunciation,-none of these is entitled to inheritance.' (a) Marriage within one's own caste is what is sanctioned by the Scriptures; a woman in contravention of this is 'one married in contravention of the sanctioned order':-(6) Even one married in accordance with the sanctioned order may belong to the same gotra as the Husband; the Son born of such a woman.--(c) One who having taken to Renunciation has fallen off from it.-All these are not entitled to inheritance.† * 'Other-i.e. Other than that of the Householder (Aperārka, p. 750; also Vibhāgasāra 6.1-3 and Vivādaratnakära, p. 208). This text means that persons in other Life-stages have no connection with property-(Mitāksarā, pp. 823-824). Other Life-stages -i.e. the Life-long Student, the Hermit and the Wandering Mendicant-Madanapārijāta, p. 682). What is meant is that the man in one Life-stage cannot inherit the property of a person in another Life-stage; it is not meant that people in the same Lifestage shall not inherit each other's property--(Parāsharamādhava, p. 365). + Akramodhāsutaḥ'—the Son born of a woman married in contravention of the order of castes and of the order of birth; and the Son of a woman born from a Husband who is of the same gotra as herself;--these are not entitled to inherit property. And the reason for this lies in the prohibition contained in these texts, and not to the fact of their being not entitled to perform religious acts; because there can be no ground for this latter idea-(Aparārka, p. 750). (a) The term 'akramodhāsutaḥ' stands for the Šon born to a man from a Wife of a caste different from his own, who has been married to him in contravention of the laws regulating the order in which inter-caste marriages may be performed. That the Son of a different caste is meant is clear from the fact that in another text, Kātyāyana has declared the Son born of a Wife of the same caste to be entitled to inheritance.-(6) The Son bom to a man from a married Wife belonging to the same gotra as himself.-(c) 'Pravrajyāvasitah'-the man who, after having become a Renunciate, has fallen off from the observance of the vows of Renunciation.- These three are not entitled to inheritance(Vivādaratnākara, p. 492). The Son born of a woman married in contravention of the sanctioned order of caste and of birth;—and the Son of a man from a Wife belonging to the same gotra as himself;—and the man who, after having entered the fourth Life-stage, has repounced its vows.- None of these is entitled to inheritance_(Smſtichandrikā, 'Akramodhäsutaḥ - the Son born of a woman married in the inverse order. 'Pravrajyāvasitaḥ-one who has fallen off from Renunciation (Vivādachandra 21.1-5). If one marries a woman of a lower caste before marrying one of the same caste, both these women would be 'married in contravention of the sanctioned order'; --if to such a woman, a Son is born from a man of the same gotra as herself, who has been appointed' to beget a Son on them, --such a Kșētraja Son would not be entitled to inheritance (Dāyabhäga, p. 103, also Vēramitrodaya, p. 712). Some people have explained the term 'akramoddhäsutaħ' as standing for the Kșētraja and the Kānīna Sons.--If a younger Sister has been married before the elder Sister is married, both of these would be akramodhā'; this is the right explanation of the term -(Vyavahāramayukha, p. 164). Akramodhāsutaḥ-The Son born of a Wife married in a form other than that which is sanctioned for the person concerned. Those not entitled to inherit may be thus summed up :-(1) One addicted to evil deeds, (2) Outcast, (3) Impotent, (4) Stricken by an incurable disease, (5) Blind, (6) Deaf, (7) Mad, (8) Idiot, . p. 630).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 207 With reference to the first of those mentioned in the preceding text Kātyāyana makes a distinction [929] 'The Son born of a woman married in contravention of the sanctioned order, however, does obtain the property if he is of the same caste as his Father.' That is, the Son, even though born of a woman married in contravention of the sanctioned order, is entitled to share in the property, if he belongs to the same caste as his Father. The upshot of all this is as follows:- The following are not entitled to share the inheritance (1) One who is addicted to evil deeds, (2) One who has been excommunicated on account of a very heinous offence, (3) the Outcast, (4) the Impotent, (5) one who is incapable of performing religious acts, (6) Blind, (7) Deaf, (8) Insane, (9) Idiot, (10) Dumb, (11) Deprived of hands and feet, (12) Leprous, (13) Hostile to the Father, (14) Consumptive, (15) Religious Hypocrite, (16) One who has entered another Life-stage.- The Sons of these, except that of the Outcast--if themselves free from the disabling defects,-are entitled to shares in the property. SECTION (D)—THE SACRAMANTAL RITES OF THOSE FOR WHOM THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PERFORMED On this subject says Vyāsa- [930] 'Those Brothers and Sisters whose Sacramental Rites have not been performed should have those Rites performed in the proper manner, by their elder Brothers, out of the paternal property.' Nārada-[This text is the same as No. 907 above.] [931] 'In case there is no paternal property, those Brothers who have already had their Sacramental Rites performed must perform the same for their Brothers, taking what is necessary out of their own shares.' [For notes, see under Text No. 907 above.] Yajñavalkya (2.124) [932] ‘(A) Those Brothers who have not had their Sacramental Rites already performed shall have these performed by the Brothers for whom those Rites have been already performed.—(B) So also the Sisters, after they have been given the fourth part of a share.' † (9) Dumb, (10) Devoid of hands and feet, (11) Leprous, (12) Hostile to Father, (13) Consumptive, (14) Religious Hypocrite, (15) One who has entered another Lifestage.--The Sons of these persons, if born before the appearance of these disabilities, and if free from these disabilities themselves, are entitled to inheritance (Vibhāgasāra 6.1-4). * The “Sacramental Rites for the girls would be their Marriage (Vivādaratnākara, p. 493). In cases where the property is being divided after the Father's death,-if there are Brothers and Sisters whose Sacramental Rites have not been performed, - those Rites should be performed by their elder Brothers-(Parāsharamadhava, The Rites shall be performed out of the joint property-(Vīramitrodaya, p. 580). This text lays down the necessity of performing the Sacramental Rites of Brothers and Sisters—(Dāyanirnaya 21.2–4). + The Sacramental Rite'stands here for marriage; the marriage of the unmarried Brothers shall be performed by the Brothers already married; or they shall set aside p. 344).

·208 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI Manu (9.118) [933] 'From among the Brothers, each, out of his own share, shall severally give the fourth part to the unmarried girls; those not inclined to give this become degraded.' wealth adequate for their marriage and divide the balance. It is from this that we learn that marriage should be performed with the joint property, for Brothers as well as Sisters. In places where the property is not small, the Brothers shall divide it equally among themselves, after having set aside the fourth part of their share for the Sister-(Vishvarūpa). Those younger Brothers whose Sacramental Rites—the Jātakarma and the rest have not been performed by the Father,-for them, these Rites shall be performed by the elder Brothers for whom they have been already performed.-As for the Sisters who have not been already married, each of them shall be given away in marriage by the Brothers, after these latter have given to each of the Sisters the fourth part of the share that may have come to each of them--(Aparārka). On the Father's death, if there are some Brothers for whom the Sacramental Rites have not been performed, -these shall be performed for them, out of the joint property, by the Brothers, when they are going to divide it after their Father's death.-As regards the Sisters, those that have not had their Sacramental Rites performed shall have these performed by their Brothers,--who should have given to them the fourth part of their share. From this it follows that after the Father's death, the Daughters also are entitled to a share in the inheritance.--'Nijāt amshât', out of their share';-this phrase does not mean that each Brother is to take out a fourth part from his share and give it to the Sister; what is meant is that the girl should receive the fourth part of the share that has been ordained for a Son of the same caste as the Sister concerned. That is to say, if the girl belongs to the Brähmana caste, she is to receive the fourth part of the share that would go to a Son of the Brahmana Wife. For instance, (a) if a Brāhmana has only one Wife, and she belongs to the Brāhmaṇa caste, and she has one Son and one Daughter,– the entire paternal property shall be divided into two parts; one of these two parts shall be divided into four parts, and one of these four parts shall be given to the Daughter and the rest to the Son;-(b) if there are two Sons and one Daughter, the entire property shall be divided into three parts; one of these three parts shall be divided into four parts, and one of these four parts shall be given to the Daughter and the rest shall be divided equally between the two Sons ;-(c) if there are one Son and two Daughters, the property shall be divided into three parts; one of these three parts shall be divided into four parts; two of these four parts shall be given to the Daughters, one to each, and the rest shall go to the Son; and so on, when an equal number or unequal number of Brothers and Sisters belong to the same caste ;-(d) in a case however, where the Brāhmana has one Son from his Brāhmana Wife, and one Daughter from his Kşattriya Wife, the property shall be divided into seven parts; three of these seven parts that are ordained for the Kşattriya Son shall be divided into four parts, and one of these four parts shall be given to the Kşattriya Daughter and the rest shall be taken by the Brāhmana Son;-(e) where there are two Brāhmana Sons and one Kşattriya Daughter, the property shall be divided into eleven parts; out of these eleven parts, the three parts ordained for a Kşattriya Son shall be divided into four parts, and one of these four parts shall be given to the Kşattriya Daughter and the rest divided between the two Brāhmaṇa Sons. It cannot be right to hold the view that—no significance attaches to the specifying of the fourth part, what is meant is that she shall receive enough for her marriage. Because such a view would be contrary to Manu 9.118 which declares that each of the Brothers shall give to his Sisters the fourth part extracted from his share' (vide below Text No. 933)-(Mitākşarā). Out of the common property, the Brothers who have had their Upanayana, Marriage and other Sacramental Rites already performed shall performa these Rites for those Brothers for whom they have not been performed; the Sisters-unmarried ones—also should have the Rites performed for them by the Brothers; who shall give them the fourth part of the share that may be theirs, in accordance with their caste. The first'tu' indicates that, in the case of the Brothers, there is no limitation regarding the amount to be spent; while the second 'tu' indicates that in the case of the Sisters, there is to be such a limitation. In case the 'fourth part' is not sufficient for the Sister's marriage, they shall give her as much as may be needed ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 209 “Svēbhyaḥ-i.e. from among the Brothers.-Thus what is meant is that to each of the girls shall be given the fourth part out of the share of the Brother belonging to the same caste as the girl concerned.-No significance for it, in accordance with their means; such being the declaration of Vişnu (Text No. 934 below)--(Viramitrodaya-Tīkā) (A) The meaning is that the division of property shall be made only after all the Sacramental Rites ending with marriage have been performed for all those Borthers and Sisters for whom they may not have been performed.-(B) The meaning of the second line is as follows:--After having performed the Sacramental Rites of the Sisters, the Brothers shall give to them the fourth part from where ?—'out of their share'; the 'nīja ansha', 'own share', standing for the share that has been ordained under Manu 9.153 for the Sons of the various castes.--'Four shares for the Brāhmana, three for the Kșattriya, two for the Vaishya and one for the Shudra'; and it is the fourth part of this share that is meant.-[Here follows the scheme of division on the same lines as in Mitākṣarā.] In a case where a Brāhmaṇa has four Wives of the four castes, and the Brāhmaṇa Wife has a Son and Daughter, so also the Kşattriya Wife, the Vaishya Wife and the Shüdra Wife, thus there being eight children, four male and four female,-according to Manu (9.153), the Brāhmana is to have four shares, the Kşattriya three and so on, there should be eight shares for the two Brāhmaṇa children, six for the two Kşattriya children, four for the two Vaishya children and two for the the two Shüdra children; thus the property shall be divided into twenty shares, and to the Brāhmana Daughter shall be given fourth part of the 'four parts that have been ordained for the Brāhmana Song--to the Ksattriya Daughter, the fourth part of the three parts' ordained for the Kşattriya Son, to the Vaishya Daughter, the fourth part of the two parts' ordained for the Vaishya Son, and to the šhüdra Daughter, the fourth part of the one part' ordained for the Shüdra Son.–After these fourth'shares have been given away, the remaining property shall be pooled together, and out of this the Sons shall receive 4, 3, 2 and I shares respectively. In cases where the number of Sons and Daughters is not equal, the property shall be divided into as many shares as there are individual children, on the basis of their castes,-in the proportion of 4, 3, 2, 1,--and each Daughter shall receive the fourth part of the share that has been ordained for a Son of the same caste as that Daughter, and the three quarters of that share that are left shall be pooled together and divided among the Brothers in the same proportion of 4, 3, 2, 1. Some people have held the following opinion on this point: “Having set apart one-fourth for the Sister, her marriage shall be performed with that one-fourth; and not that her marriage shall be performed out of the common property and then the property divided". This view has not been accepted by Medhātithi, nor by the Author of the Mitākşarā and others; hence it should be rejected.-In fact, every case may be dealt with in accordance with the custom prevailing in the country concerned-(Madanapārijāta, pp. 648-650). The Brother should give to each Sister the fourth part of what is his own share, and then perform their marriage (Smrtichandrikā, pp. 625-626). After the Father's death, his Sons should perform, out of the common property, the Sacramental Rites for such of their Brothers as have not had their Rites already performed ; -as regards the Sisters, those whose Sacramental Rites have not been performed shall be given the fourth part of the share ordained for a Son of the caste to which the Sister concerned belongs; and then their Sacramental Rites should be performed.—From this it follows that after the Father's death, the Daughters also are entitled to share his propery--(Parăsharamādhava, pp. 345-346). Here Yājňavalkya has declared that the Daughters shall be married, not that they are entitled to inheritance. Hence the conclusion is that where the property is a large one, they shall give to the Sister just enough to enable her to become married, and not necessarily the 'fourth part of a share'. This should be understood as applying to cases where there is an equal number of Sons and Daughters. In cases where the numbers are unequal, the result of existing on the 'fourth part of a share' being given would be to make the Sister extremely rich and the Sons very poor; which would be improper--(Dāyabhāga, pp. 69-70). The construction is asanskrtāḥ saņskāryāḥ';those whose Rites have not been performed should have them performed by the Brothers—(Viramitrodaya, Each of the Sisters shall receive the fourth part of the share that is ordained for a Son of the same caste as the Sister concerned ; and after that, she shall be married—(Vyavahāramayükha, p. 106). 14 p. 580).

·210 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI is meant to be attached to the 'fourth part'; all that is meant is that that much should be given which would be needed for her Sacramental Rite. That such is the idea is clear from the following text of Vişnum [934] 'One should perform the Sacramental Rite of the unmarried girls, in accordance with his means.'-[Girls'i.e. Daughters and Sisters--says Vivādachandra 20.2-9). The same view is held by the Ratnakara and others. * * The term 'Kanya' is, as a rule, used in the sense of the unmarried girl; in another Smrti text, the term 'unmarried' is actually used. The share, therefore, that is here laid down should be taken as pertaining to the unmarried Daughter... of the same caste' (which is what is meant by 'svābhyaḥ', which is the reading adopted in some places);- each of the Brothers should give to the Sister of the same caste as himself the fourth part of his own share; that is to say, in a case where the Father has left several unmarried Daughters, the share allotted to each of them should be the fourth part of the portion of the Brother belonging to the same caste as herself. The upshot therefore comes to this that three parts of the property shall be taken by the Sons and the fourth part by the Daughters. According to some people, the only benefit to which the girl is entitled is that her marriage should be performed; such, they say, is the custom also. But the direct assertion of the Smrti is definitely more authoritative than custom; moreover the custom referred to is by no means universal.--Another view that has been held is that the girl shall receive just enough of the property to suffice for the performance of her marriage, and not definitely the fourth part of a share.—But this would make the rule indefinite; there being no definite rule as to what is required for the performance of a marriage.---Then again, we have Yājnavalkya's text (2.124) laying down that the Brothers who have had their Sacramental Rites performed should perform the same for the unmarried girls, and Sisters should receive from their Brothers the fourth part of their shares'.The term 'bhrātarah', 'brothers', in the present text has been taken as standing for the uterine Brothers, as is indicated by the term 'prthak', 'severally'.--But if that were so, then the girl that has no uterine Brother would have to go without a share in the property; nor could there be a chance for any dowry being provided for her. It might be argued that her Step-brother would provide for her; but in the absence of such a rule, he may not do it. In reality, the term 'brothers' is found to be used in the sense of Sons of the same Father, even those of several Mothers.-As regards the term 'prthak', 'severally', in the text, it has been added in order to guard against the possible interpretation that the fourth part of the share of a single Brother shall be divided among all the Sisters (Medhătithi). The Sons of the Brāhmaṇa Wife shall give to the Daughters of the Brāhmana Wife,--and the Sons of the Kşattriya Wife to her Daughters, the fourth part of their respective shares. Even in cases where there are several Daughters, the division shall be on the basis of the said principle. In a case where there are several Brothers and only one Sister, all the Brothers shall set apart for her just enough to make up for her what would be equal to the fourth part of the share allotted to each Brother -(Sarvajñanārāyana). If there are four Brothers belonging respectively to the four castes, and they have inherited the property in the proportion of 4, 3, 2, 1, as laid down by Manu (9.153), each of them shall give the fourth part of his share to the unmarried Sister belonging to the same caste as himself. That is, each Brother shall give to his uterine Sister the fourth part of the property for the purpose of her marriage. If & girl has no uterine Brother of her own, she should have her marriage performed by her Step-brothers belonging to superior or inferior castes. In the event of the Brothers being not inclined to give the fourth part of their shares to the Sisters, they would "become degraded'. It follows from this that the fourth part of one's share is to be given by the Brothers to their uterine Sisters, also in Cases where there are several Brothers and Sisters of the same caste, but bom of different Mothers~(Kutlūka). This text lays down the rule governing cases where there are Daughters also. -The Brothers should give the fourth part of their share to their Sisters belonging to the same ceste as themselves, for the purposes of their marriage. If there are three Brothers who have had three shares among them, each of those 14B ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 211 SECTION (E-WHAT IS PARTIBLE ? [935) "The property of the Grandfather, the property of the Father and whatever may have been the self-acquired by any one,--all this is divided at the partition among coparceners '-(Kätyāyana). shares is to be divided into four parts, and one of these parts is to go to the Sister. This refers to cases where there have been several Mothers-(Ragharānanda). Each of the divided Brothers shall give to each of the unmarried Sisters the fourth part of his share-( Vandana). 'Degraded'-i.e. not entitled to share in the property--(Ramachandra). The two words 'svābhyah amsh@bhyaḥ' refer only to the Sons' shares; the Plural Number being used in reference to cases where there may be several girls.--"Svāt svāt'--this repetition is with reference to girls belonging to several castes. The sense is as follows:--In a case where a Brāhmana has had Wives of all four castes, the Daughter of the Brāhmana Wife shall receive the fourth part of the share that would go to the Brāhmaṇa Son, and so on. This fourth part', however, is not her *Inheritance, 'Dāya'-(Åparārka, 731), What is meant is as follows:--The Brothers belonging to the four castes shall give to the Sisters of the same caste as themselves the fourth part of the share that would be allotted to themselves in accordance with Manu (9.153)-i.e. in the proportion of 4, 3, 2, 1. It is not meant that the Brother is to take out the fourth part from his own share and give it; what is meant is that to each Sister shall be given the fourth part of the share that has been assigned to a Son of the same caste. It is not right to urge that."No significance attaches.to the specific mention of the fourth part, all that is meant is that just that amount of wealth shall be given as would suffice for the performance of the girl's marriage": -Because both Manu and Yajñavalkya specify the 'fourth share', and also declare that by not giving this fourth part, the Brothers would incur a grave sin.-Some people have argued that “if this rule were strictly followed, and the exact fourth part of a share were assigned to each Sister, then in cases where there would be several Brothers and only one Sister, the latter would receive a large property ; while in a case where there would be only one Brother and several Sisters, the Son would have nothing left for himself":-—But no such contingency could arise under the rule as explained above; where we have shown that it is not meant that the Brother shall give the fourth part of the portion that has been assigned to himself; so that there would be no such contingencies as have been urged.-For these reasons, the right explanation is that given by Asahāya, Medhātithi and others, and not the one given by Bharuchi.- Thus we conclude that after the Father's death, the Daughter also is entitled to a share in the property; but in case the Father has already given to her some property she retains that and no more is given to her adds the Balambhatti)-(Mitakşară, pp. 665–667). The meaning of the text is not that 'the Brother shall take over fourth part of his own share and give it to his Sister';-but that to each girl shall be allotted the fourth part of the share that would go to a Son of the same caste'. Thus the sense comes to be that, out of the given total of 'four shares' (that have been assigned to the Brāhmana Son),-or the three shares' (that have been assigned to the Kşattriya Son); and so forth, the fourth part shall be given to the Brāhmana or the Kșattriya girl respectively.-Inasmuch as the 'fourth part of a share is found specially mentioned in several texts, it is actually the fourth part' that shall be given; though the purpose of the gift is that her marriage may be performed. -This same view has been held by the Kalpataru, the Mitākgarā and the Prakasha. -But Halāyudha and others have held the view that the fourth part is mentioned only by way of an illustration,—the sense is that that much shall be given as would sufice for her marriage. This is the right view; for whatever the fourth part' may be, it is absolutely essential that the girl should be married-(Vivādaratnākara, The clear meaning of the words as indicated by the repetition 'svāt-avat' is that the Brothers shall give to the girls as many quarter-shares as there may be full-shares of the Brothers'; but seeing that the text pertains to cases where there may be several girls, there is no such discrepancy as would be involved if & single Sister were to receive the fourth parts of the shares of all the Brothers. What is meant is that the fourth part of the entire property (constituting the shares of all the Brothers) is to be divided equally among the Sisters. The text of Vişnu referring to the 'unmarried' girls refers to cases where there is only one Son and hence there p. 494).

·212 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI 6 Self-acquired'-i.e. with the help of the paternal property.* Nārada [936] 'What is left after the discharge of the Father's liabilities, and the giving of what had been given away by the Father,--shall be divided by the Brothers; otherwise the Father would remain a Debtor.' is no question of partition at all. Or it may be taken as referring to cases where the Brothers are living together. The term 'Kanya' stands here for all those children of the Father's as have not had their Sacramental Ritos performed already -(Smrtichandrikā, pp. 626-627). Each of the Brothers belonging to the four castes shall give to each of the Sisters belonging to the same caste the fourth part of the share that has been assigned to the Sons of the several castes.-[Then follows the details of allotment on the lines of the Mitāksarā.] Such is the explanation given by Medhātithi and Vijñanēshvara. Bhāruchi, however, has explained the fourth part' as standing for 'such wealth as would be necessary for their marriage', and hence he does not accept the view that the unmarried Daughter is entitled to inheritance. This idea is approved of by the Author of the Chandrikā also-(Parāsharamadhava, pp. 345-346). The use of the term 'pradadyuħ', 'should give', and the declaration that "by not giving, the Brother incurs sin', -imply that the girl receives the said 'fourth part not as a matter of right, but as a gift; because one rightful claimant does not give a share to another rightful claimant-(Dāyabhāga, p. 69). The text does not mean that every one of the Brothers is to take out the fourth part of his share and give that to each of the Sisters'.-If this were meant, then a Sister who had several Brothers would become extremely rich and the Brother who had several Sisters would be reduced to penury.-All that is meant is that the Sisters shall receive just enough to enable them to get married. Such is the explanation given by Ratnākara, Chintamani and others; and support of this view they have put forward Vişnu's text regarding unmarried Daughters'.-This view, however, is not right; because according to both the Smộtis (Manu and Yājñavalkya). the withholding of the shares from the Sisters would be iniquitous; and the sin incurred in not being inclined to give the shares has been spoken of as distinct from that incurred in not performing their marriage. For these reasons, Medhatithi, Mitāksarā and others have propounded the following explanation--[Then follows the scheme set forth in Mitāksarā]-(Vīramitrodaya, pp. 581-582). Towards the expenses of the marriage of their Sisters, each Brother shall contribute a quarter of his share, either out of the paternal property or out of his own self-acquired property.—Svábhyaḥ-i.e. out of the shares of the Brothers belonging to the same caste as the Sisters.-The mention of the 'Brothers' is only by way of illustration; it stands for any one who has inherited the property of the girls' Father; the performance of the marriage being something that the Father should have done; and also because the girl also has a share in the propertysay some.--It is not necessary that each of the Brothers should surrender a quarter of his share; all that is meant is that 'necessary provision should be made for their marriage -- as declared by Vişnu.-According to some people, the 'fourth part' is to be given in cases where the property is a large one -(Vibhagasāra 6.2.5. 11). 'Fourth part' ;--this stands for just that much which may be necessary for the marriage of the sister. This is clear from Vişnu's text-(Dāyanirnaya 21.2–7). Self-acquired'—with the help of the ancestral property. What is acquired without such help is not partible.—All the three kinds of property mentioned in the text are divided, i.e. if there is no debt contracted by the Grandfather and others remaining unpaid; in case there is such debt, what is divided is, not the whole, but only what remains of it after clearing off the debt-(Smrtichandrikā, p. 635). "Self-acquired'-i.e. in a manner other than that which would make the property entirely and solely his own-Vivadarotnākaro p. 496). Self-acquired'-i.e. acquired by one, with the help of the Father's property- (Vibhāgasära 7.1.1). * Yachchanyat' ;-—the cumulative particle cha'is to be construed with svayam'; the meaning being that'what has been self-acquired and also what has been acquired, with the help of that self-acquired property, by others'; that is why the acquirer of the original property has a double share as laid down by Vyāsa (Text No. 898, above)(Dāyanirnaya 14.2.1). Of the 'self-acquired property', only that is partible which may have been acquired with the help of the paternal property; what has not been so acquired ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 213 'Pitrdāya'-Father's debts.-'Dattam', 'given away',-i.e. promised to be given.--The sense thus is that what remains after the discharge of all the liabilities of the Father is to be divided. * SECTION (F)-WHAT IS IMPARTIBLE ? Says Manu (9.206)- [937] 'The gains of learning shall be the sole property of the man by whom they have been acquired; so also friendly presents, marriage-portion and presents in connection with priestly functions.' Maitra'-what has been obtained as a token of regard from a friend.- 'Audvāhika', 'marriage-portion',-is going to be defined later on (Text No. 949)- Jādhuparkika'—the worshipful offerings of vessels and other things, made in connection with the offering of the Honey-mixture'. Presents of honour, in the shape of vessels and other things, given in connection with 'Honey-mixture offered on occasions of Reception, etc. p. 169). like; being impartible.-Of all these three kinds of property what can be divided is only the balance that remains after the debts have been paid off-(Parāsharamādhara, p. 375). * Vibhāgasāra (7.1-3) and Dāyanirnaya (21.2-3) have the same notes as Vivādachintamani. Pitsdāya—the property promised by the Father to other people.-The Author of the Prakāsha has readpītrdāna'; it makes no difference in the meaning- (Vivādaratnākara, p. 496). What is meant is the necessity of paying the Father's debts, not the time for partition--(Dayabhāga, p. 25, and Vīramitrodaya, pp. 557-558), Pitrdāya'-- First Shrāddhas. Gautama says that 'they shall perform the Shraddha jointly',(4parārka, p. 722; also Smrtichandrikā, p. 616). 'Pitsdāyēbhyan'—from what has been giren away or promised by the Father. If they are unable to pay off the debt at the time, they should admit the debt to the creditor and promise to pay it as soon as they are able to do so---(Smộtitattva II, 'Pitrdāya' is what has been promised by the Father-(Pyarahāramayūkha, p. 123). † Vidya'-Teaching, etc.; as also proficiency in an art;-Maitram presents received from friends ;-'audvāhikam'-in the shape of Dowry and the this stands for all that is received from the Father in-law's house; others explain it as any presents that may be received in connection with one's marriage; 'madhuparkikam',-as a consideration for priestly functions; though this also is included under vidyādhana', 'gains of learning', yet it has been mentioned separately, because it is obtained by means of the special kind of work involved in the priestly functions at sacrifices--Medhätithi). Vidyādhanam-the property acquired by means of learning ;-this refers to the case of Brothers; maitram', got from friends;—'audvāhikam', obtained from the Wife's relatives ;-Mädhuparkikam'-obtained in connection with the Honey-mixture and other offerings made to one by virtue of his having become an Accomplished Student-(Sarvajñanārāyana). Obtained by learning, friendship and marriage, and what is obtained as a present at the time of the offering of the Honey-mixture;-tasyaira bharēt'--shall be the sole property of, etc., etc.--This is an exception to the general rule laid down in Manu 9.204 regarding the younger Brothers being entitled to share in the property acquired by the eldest Brother after the death of the Father.- Vidyadhana' has been defined by Kätyāyana (see Text No. 941 below);-in view of this definition, the explanation of the term mädhuparkikam' as 'what has been obtained as consideration for priestly functions' -as provided by Medhătithi and Govindarajacannot be accepted; as this last would be included under Vidyadhana--(Kullūka). What is stated here is that even though the Brothers may not be separated, what any one of them acquires by means of learning, etc. shall not be divided. 6 ·214 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Manu (9.208) and Vişnu (18.42) [933] 'If any one of them acquires something by his own labour, without drawing on the patrimony,--that property having been acquired by his own effort, he need not give to others, unless he himself wishes it.' 'Labour-i.e. service and the like.-Effort'-Agriculture, etc.--All this is merely by way of illustration; what is meant is that whatever a man has himself acquired without drawing upon the joint property, is the exclusive property of the acquirer himself.* 6 There are seven kinds of' Vidyadhana' (see Kätyāyana. Text 941).-- Mādhuparkham' -silver plates and other things received in connection with the Honey-mixture offering-(Raghavananda). Vidyādhanam'-What has been obtained by means of teaching and art. Maitram-obtained from friends.-'Audvāhikam'-obtained at the time of marriage.--Mädhuparkikan'-obtained at the time of the Honey-mixture offering -(Nandana). What one has obtained by means of learning shall not be given to the coparceners -(Aparārka, p. 724). Maitran what is obtained from friends.-Mädhuparkikam'-what is obtained as a present of honour at the time of the Honey-mixture offering.– Tasyaiva bhavēti.e. shall be impartiblar (Vivādaratnākara, p. 499). Presents of friendship shall not be divided—(Vivādachandra 21.1-9). 'Maitram'-received as present from a friend.-Mädhuparkikam'-the presents received at reception on other occasions (Vibhägasāra 7.1-8). * The sharing of the Gains of Learning having been already precluded by the previous text, the present text should be taken as laying down that one need not gire what he himself acquires by Agriculture and other means(Medhätithi). Shramēņa'-by service involving much labour.-"Svayamīhita?-his own unaided effort.-Nākāmo dāturmarhati", -he may give what little he wishes to give, and there is no need for equal division. In what has been acquired without labour, there is to be equal division--(Sarvajñanārāyana). Without any detriment to the patrimony, whatever one acquires by laborious work, in the shape of Agriculture and the like, has been acquired by the man's own effort; hence he need not give it to his Brothers—(Kullūka). 'Anupaghnan' --without drawing upon.—Ihitalabdham'-acquired by learning -(Raghavānanda). * Anupaghnan'-not injuring, not drawing upon.-Shramêna'-by Agriculture and such means.-All other cases, where equal division has been declared, are those in which all the Brothers have put forth some effort towards the acquisition; in the present case, the acquisition has been due entirely to the effort of one man; hence there is no inconsistency--(Nandana). Anupaghnan'-not spending. Svayamīhitalabdha'-acquired by his own effort.Ramachandra). 'Shrama'-Labour, which stands here for Soldiering, Agriculture and the like.- Ihā' is effort not involving labour.-[According to this, there would be two kinds of property mentioned in the text: (a) what is acquired by laborious work, and (6) what is acquired by one's own effort not involving much labour]—(Aparārka, p. 723). Shramēna' by Service, Soldiering and the like. This text makes clear the sense of Yājñavalkya 2.118-119(Mitāksarā, pp. 633-634). 'Shrama'--Agriculture, etc.-The term pity stands for undivided coparceners in general-(Parasharamadhava, p. 373). 'Shrama'--Service, Soldiering and the likem(Madanapārijāta, p. 685). In this text Manu has made clear the meaning of Yajñavalkya's Text 2.118.- The term pity stands for undivided coparceners in general.-- Shramēna?- Agriculture and such other means involving labour. Anupaghnan-without causing injury to—(Smrtichandrikā, pp. 641-642). What has been acquired without drawing upon the paternal property has been declared by Manu and Vişnu to be impartible. Since the patrimony has not been drawn upon, the other coparceners have rendered no monetary help in the &cquiring of the property; and as it has been acquired entirely by the man's own effort and labour, the others have not helped with bodily labour either; hence 6 ·INHERITANCE- PARTITION 215 Vyāsa [939] 'What has been given to one through affection, by the Grandfather, the Father or the Mother, shall not be taken by others.' Again [940] 'If one has acquired property by his own power, without recourse to the paternal property,--he shall not give that to his coparceners; so also what may have been acquired by learning.' That is, (a) what has been acquired without drawing upon the joint property, and (6) what has been acquired by means of learning, - both of these are impartible.* The opinion of the Prakāsha is that~"In the case of the Gains of Learning also, only that is impartible which has been acquired without drawing upon the joint property. This, however, cannot be right; as in that case, the mention of both would be useless.--Such is the opinion of the Ratnākara and others also. The following might be urged "In accordance with the following text of Nārada's- [941] 'A learned man may not give, against his will, a share in his selfacquired property, to the unlearned coparcener,-if it has been acquired without drawing upon the paternal property? it follows that even the property acquired by learning is partible if it has been acquired with the help of the paternal property." ?? $ what has been acquired must be the exclusive property of the person who has acquired it. - Svayamīhitalabdham', -this phrase states the ground for the property acquired belonging to the acquirer only (p. 105).- Anupaghnan' should qualify vidyādhana' also; because it has been declared that, if the acquiring of learning has involved expenditure out of the patrimony, the gains of that learning have to be divided-(Dāyabhāga, p. 113). Shramēna'-by Service and such means-(Vīramitrodaya, p. 708). Shrama' stands for Service and such other means.—Thita' is Agriculture and the like. All this is merely illustrative; what is meant is that when a man has acquired something without the help of the joint property, it belongs to him absolutely (Vibhagasāra 9.1-8). * Labour-Service and the like.-By his own effort'-e.g. Agriculture (Dāyanirnaya 14.2-5). * The meaning is that if the learning by means of which the property has been acquired with the help of the joint property has itself been acquired with the help of the joint property, then that property shall be partible; but in case the joint property has not been used in the acquiring of learning, then the gains of that learning shall not be partible-(Vibhāgasära 7.1-11). 'Anashrtya:-without having recourse to-for the purpose of acquiring. The term pit?' stands for undivided coparceners in general - (Smrtichandrikā, p. 642). As the text has used the general term 'by his own powers', it follows that all kinds of property that have been acquired by one's own energy are the exclusive property of the acquirer himself; so that all that has been acquired with the help of one's own self-acquired property, or by his own labour, is also his own exclusive property, and cannot be shared by the Brothers. Inasmuch as even the Gains of Learning that have been acquired by one's own power' have been held to be such as have to be shared with those Brothers who happen to be either superior or equal to the acquirer in learning, all that the addition of 'what has been acquired by learning in the present text can mean is the exclusion of such Brothers as are either inferior to the acquirer in learning, or entirely without learning-(p. 106).- All that such texts mean is that'one must share with his coparceners all that property which one may have acquired with the help of the common property'; the meaning of Valour' ('Learning') and the rest is meant to be only illustrative; hence there can be no authority for the view that "a property is common simply because it has been acquired by a member of the joint family"-(Dāyabhāga, pp. 114-116).

·216 VIVĀDACHINTĪMAŅI True; but this would be so in those cases where the joint property has been drawn upon both in the acquiring of learning and the acquiring of the property.* It is for this same reason that Kätyāyana has declared impartibility on the basis of being acquired without help of the joint property [942] 'Where & man has acquired learning from others while living upon food supplied by others,--whatever is obtained by him by means of that learning is called Gains of Learning.' † * What is meant is as follows :-@) If the man who has acquired learning while maintaining himself with food and clothing supplied out of the joint property, acquires wealth without drawing upon the joint property,—then he may not give any share out of it to his unlearned coparcener ;-(b) if the said property has been acquired with the help of the joint property, then a share in it has to be given to the unlearned coparcerner also ;-(c) if the joint property has not been drawn upon cing the time of the acquiring of learning, then no share need be given to any one else, even though at the time of the acquiring of new property itself, the joint property may have been used; in this case it belongs entirely to the learned acquirer himself. This follows from the fact that Vyāsa also, having declared the impartibility of what has been acquired by a coparcener without help of the joint property, has added the 'Gains of Learning separately, as not to be divided. It is for this reason that the impartibility the Gains of Learning has to be taken as referring to that case where the learning has been acquired by the man with the help of his own private property, though at the time of the acquiring of the property the joint property may have been used. Such is the opinion of Halāyudha also.—The Author of the Prakasha and others, however, have explained all those texts that declare the Gains of Learning' to be impartible as pertaining to cases where the paternal property has not been drawn upon at all.—But this is not right; as, in that case, there would be no sense in the mention of both-(Vivādaratnākara, pp. 500- 501). The meaning is that the learned man is not to give a share against his will. The property mentioned in the first line is to be understood as that property acquired by learning which is impartible (Smrtichandrikā, p. 641). This refers to cases where the acquirer is unwilling to give a share-(Parāsharamadhava, p. 378). The implication of this text is that the division is to be equal between two learned coparceners, even though the amounts of wealth acquired by them severally may be unequal-(Vivādachandra 21.2-10). This negation of partibility is meant for those cases where the Brothers have other property. If they have no other property, then a share has to be given to them also; so says Madana-(Vyavahāramayükha, p. 127). 'Pitryam dravyam' stands for joint property. If the Gains of Learning have not been acquired with the help of the joint property, then the learned may not give it to the unlearned; but to the learned, he must give it,-even when it has been acquired without the help of the joint property-(Dāyabhāga, p. 108). The implication is that, if the Gains of Learning have been mixed up with the other property, then it has to be given; and if a coparcener, even though learned, has not earned anything,--he also should not be allowed to share in the Gains of Learning of another (Vibhāgasāra 7.1-7). The law on this point is briefly this:-Where the property concerned has been acquired by a coparcener with the help of the ancestral property, through Sol. diering, Trade and such other means, or by Learning,—that property shall be divided equally among the Brothers; the acquirer himself receiving a double share (Dāyanirnaya, 14.2.6). † 'Bhakta'-food. Anyatah'–from a person other than the Father---(Aparārka, p, 724). In this text Kätyāyana provides the definition of that Gains of Learning' which is impartiblo...(Mitāksarā, p. 632; also Paramitrodaya, p. 708)-Parabhaktopayogena' by living on food given by persons other than the Father, etc.- 'Anyotah' from persons other than the Father and others. Thus the meaning is that 'that Gain of Learning is impartible which has been obtained by means of that learning which has been acquired without drawing upon the paternal property'- (Balambhatti).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 217 [943] "If property has been acquired by persons who have learnt the sciences in the family, from the Father or the Brothers, as also the property acquired through valour,--has been declared by Bphaspati to be partible.' The term 'Vidya', 'Sciences, stands for the Science of Weapons and the Science of Scriptures.-Thus what is meant is that-if & man has learnt the Sciences of Weapons and the Scriptures from his Father and other Agnates,- and by that learning he acquires some property, --in that property his other Brothers also are to receive shares.* [Katyāyana's definition of Vidyadhana, 'Gains of Learning')- (944) '(A) What one has acquired through his learning on the occasion of a difficult problem being propounded for discussion, with a wager,-is called the Gains of Learning; this is not divided at partition.-(B) What is obtained from a Pupil, or from officiating at sacrifices, or from the propounding of a problem, or from the solution of a difficult problem, or from the display of one's knowledge, or from disputation, or from one's superior scholarship,-is called Gains of Learning; and this is not divided at partition.—This same law holds also in the case of Artists ; The terms 'para' and 'anya' stand here for persons other than the members of the particular joint family. The term 'bhakta' stands for things in general. In the acquisition of property by learning, the means and methods are of various kinds, and the property acquired would also be of various kinds. All this is impartible-(Smstichandrika, p. 636). The 'Gains of Learning' meant to be impartible are those obtained by that Learning which has been acquired without drawing upon the family-property: hence what has been obtained by learning acquired with the help of food, etc. supplied by the family is to be divided (Vivādachandra 21.2.1-2). 'Anyataḥ'--from persons other than those belonging to one's own paternal and maternal families_(Smộtitattra II, p. 174). In a case where learning has been acquired with the help of the joint property, the Gains of Learning shall be divided; but in a case where no help has been taken from the joint property, the gains shall not be divided. That is to say, when the property in question has been acquired by learning which has been acquired by the man from a stranger and while he was living on food supplied by a stranger,- then it may not be divided; but if, in course of his education, the man has lived on food supplied by the joint family, and has learnt the sciences from his Father and other relatives, then the property shall be divided. The 'Learning', 'Vidyā': meant here is the Knowledge of Weapons and the Sciences.-The Gains of Learning have been defined in detail by Kātyāyana himself (see below Text No. 944). What is meant by this being 'impartible' is that it can be partitioned only if the acquirer wishes, not otherwise(Vibhāgasāra 7.2-3). ‘From others'-i.e. from persons other than the Father and the Uncle. If such learning has been acquired without drawing upon the patrimony, it should be shared with such Brothers as are superior or equal to the acquirer in that learning --(Dāyanirnaya 15.1-3). * The meaning is that in a joint family, if some members have acquired learning with the help of the Father's property, or with the help of the Father--any property that they may acquire through valour, etc.—i.e. by that learning-ris Gain of Learning and it shall be partible (Smſtichandrikā, pp. 638-639). Those Brothers who have acquired learning in the family'—from their Grandfather, Uncle and others or from the Father himself,-among them, if there is any property that has been acquired through that Learning, Valour and the like, it should be divided among the Brothers (Vivādaratnākara, p. 507; also Parā. sharamadhava, p. 378). The 'learning' meant here is not that of the Sciences, but the act of Valour, which one displays under dangerous circumstances (Vivādachandra 21.2-3). Among Brothers who have acquired learning in the family itself, etc., etc. (Pivādaratnākara named and reproduced)-such is the opinion of the Kalpataru also--(Smrtitattua II, p. 174).

·218 VIVĀDACHINTĀMANI whatever is obtained as prize in addition to the actual price of the manufactured article, and also what is obtained by the assertion of one's skill,—is called Gains of Learning;--so says Bhrgu.' 'From officiating at sacrifices'i.e. what is given at the 'Appointment' and after the performance (as Fee).--'Prashnāt'--from the man himself propounding of a difficult problem (of which no one is able to suggest a solution).- Prādhyayana'- superior and extensive scholarship. What is acquired by Art is to be treated like what is acquired by learning. When the Vendor has sold something to a person at a small price, if the Vendee obtains for the article a higher price, the excess thus obtained will be his exclusive property.-'Assumption of one's skill '-in the words 'I am the only person who knows this science and so forth. * * 'Prūdhyayana'-superior scholarship.-(C) Mülyad yachchädhikam bhavēt'- that excess over the proper price which is obtained by reason of the increase in the number of buyers, belongs to the Artist exclusively.—'Vidyāpratijña'--the assertion 'I alone know this science'-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 503). Here Kätyāyana provides the definition of that 'Gains of Learning' which is impartible. The sense is that what is other than this is the common property of all undivided coparceners-(Parāsharamādhava, p. 378). * Upanyastē—in what is propounded as a problem.-Shişyát –by teaching - Artvijyāt'-by officiating at sacrifices. Prashnāt'-by propounding questions, regarding the proper expiation of minor sins and so forth.-Sandigdha prashnanirnayāt by deciding the questions and cross-questions propounded by plaintiffs and defendants. --Svajñānasharsanāt'-exhibiting one's learning on public occasions. - Vādāt'-by discussions, wranglings and the like.- Pradhyayanāt'—Reciting by the time.-Vidyātaḥ'-by such knowledge as that pertaining to Dice, etc.- Didyāpratijñā'-by asserting one's superior scholarship.---(C) 'Shilpīşu'- among people who make a living by the Arts also.-Dharmaḥ —the same law holds regarding the partition of Gains of Learning.–Mülyad yad adhikam'-the excess of wealth that is obtained as salary for carrying on teaching work .., This is what has been called 'Gains of Learning, which forms one's exclusive property. Thus only that property is common to all undivided coparceners which has been acquired with the help of the ancestral property, and which is not the "Gains of Learning'-(Smrtichandrikā, pp. 637-638). Upanyastē : -'If you are able to put forward a Bhadraka I pay you so much', on being thus challenged, if one answers it successfully and thus wins the wager. Shişyāt - from the pupil whom one has taught.-Artvijyatah?—from the person for whom one has officiated at a sacrifice; what one has obtained as the Sacrificial Fee and such presents.—The Sacrificial Fee is not a gift, being payment for work done.- Also what one has earned as a reward, by solving problems propounded in literary debates, even without wagers; for example, some one asserts--*In this debate if any one answers my questions I shall give him the gold'; if some one answers the questions and removes all doubts on the point, he obtains the gold;—or when two disputants have approached a person for the purpose of settling their dispute, and he settles it to their satisfaction and obtains his reward in the shape of the sixth part of the property under dispute and so forth. Also what one obtains as a reward for giving an exhibition of his superior scholarship; so also when there is a scientific discussion on a subject between two persons and one of them wins and obtains a reward.—When from among several persons one comes forward as having acquired most excellent learning and obtains the consequent rewards.-Also what is obtained by painters and other artists;—and what is won at gambling. --All this is not partible.--The upshot is that by whatever learning or science one obtains property, that property belongs to the earner hinaself exclusively-(Dāyabhāga, pp. 123-124; Smrtitatīva II, p. 173). Upanyāsa'-is the reciting of all forms of Vedic recitation, Krama, Jatā, etc..says the Madanaratna, Others explain it as 'the propounding of difficult problems in an Assembly' -Panapūrvakam' is an Adverb modifying “upanyastē?: Shamsana' -Exhibition.-Prādhyayanam-Superior Scholarship. Shilpiņvapi?- the law relating to the Gains of Learning is applicable to the case of artists also. -Mülyad yad adhikam'-by way of reward. In all these, if there has been no drawing upon ancestral property, either in the acquiring of the learning or in the acquiring of wealth by means of that learning,--then alone is such property ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 219 Kätyāyana- [945] 'In no case shall the wealth gained by learning be given by the learned to the unlearned; that wealth shall be given by the learned to those who may be equal or superior to himself in learning.' In this case, the possession of equal or superior learning is not what makes them the recipients of the gift of the shares in the property; as if it were so, it would have to be regarded as serving a transcendental purpose. All that is meant is the unison, pooling together, of what has been acquired through learning by the several coparceners. * Kātyāyana (Nārada 13.10) [946] 'If one Brother maintains the family of another Brother who is engaged in acquiring learning,--the former shall receive a share in the wealth acquired by the latter through that learning; though he himself may be illiterate.' The law thus in brief is as follows:-When a man is being fed-by others while he is being taught by others,- and his family is not being supported by his coparceners during the time that he is learning.--if through the Weapons and the Sciences thus learnt he earns property, even with the help of the common ancestral property,—such 'Gains of Learning' is impartible. What sort of 'Gains of Talour' is impartible has been thus declared by Manu (?) [947] '(A) Having placed oneself in danger, when one does a daring act, in consequence whereof a favour is bestowed upon him by his master; what is obtained in this manner is Obtained by Valour. [948] '(B) What is obtained in Battle has been declared to be impartible--it being that wealth which one wins in battle, after having set to flight the armies of the enemy and endangering one's life for the sake of one's master.' † impartible; it is certainly partible if there has been drawing upon the ancestral property-(Vyavahāramayūkha, pp. 125-126). There are several kinds of Gains of Learning –(1) 'Artvijyatah?—by officiating at sacrifices; (2) 'Prashnāt—by pleasing the rewarder by propounding problems;- (3) 'Ajñānashamsanāt' (v.l. for jñānashamsanat')-by refuting ignorance; (4) 'Pradhyayanāt'-by means of excellence of learning and so forth-(Raghavananda on Manu 9.206). * 'In no case'-i.e. even if the acquirer be willing to give it—(Smrtichandrikā, p. 639; also Parāsharamādhava, p. 379). The term 'vidyā' (in the second line), occurring, as it does, between the terms *sama' and 'adhika' is related to both these terms; the sense being that shares are to be given to those only who are either equal or superior to the earner of learning, -not to those who may be either inferior to him, or not possessed of any learaing at all.-- Vaidyễna'-by the learned-(Dāyabhāga, p. 109; and Smštitattva II, p. 174). To one of equal or superior learning, it is not to be given as a gift; the meaning is that the gains of the two persons shall be pooled together. If a man possessed of little wealth has acquired much wealth by means of his learning, he shall receive a larger share as being the acquirer—(Vibhāgasāra, 7.2-10). This means that in a case where the additional property has been acquired through learning, without the help of the patrimony, the acquirer should give a share out of it to such of his coparceners as are either superior or equal to him in that learning.–Vaidyêna'-by the learned-(Dayanirnaya, 14.2-8). † This describes what sort of wealth acquired by valour is impartible (Vivādaratnākara, p. 503). (A) defines 'wealth acquired by valour'.-Prasabha'-force. (B) describes another kind of impartible property. This latter also has been included by Vyāsa ·220 VIVĀDACHINTĪMAŅI This same authority describes what sort of ‘Marriage-gift', 'Audvāhika', is impartible, and is the exclusive property of the person concerned [949] 'Thatever has been obtained at the time of marriage, along with the girl of his own caste, is the Property obtained with the Girl, which is pure and conducive to prosperity. Whatever has come along with the Wife is to be known as Marriage-portion.—All wealth of this kind is conducive to Dharma, Righteousness.' * > SECTION (G)-ALLOTMENT OF SHARES Says Manu (9.205) [950] 'If all the Brothers are unlearned, and the property has been acquired by their labour,--the division shall be equal; the property being regarded as non-ancestral.' Labour-such as Agriculture and the the like.Equal'i.e. not unequal.—'Non-ancestral’-hence not admitting of any Preferential Share and such inequalities. f under 'Wealth acquired by Valour'. Katyāyana has mentioned it separately only for explaining things in greater detail. Here also what makes the property im. partible is the fact that it has been acquired without the help of the joint property--(Smrtichandrikā, pp. 639-640). The term 'vidyadhana' stands, not only for what has been acquired by Learning, but also what has been acquired in the manner described in three texts (Vivādachandra 21.2-4). Here Kātyāyana makes a distinction between Shauryadhana', 'Gains of Valour' and 'Dhuajāhrta''Gains of Battle'. Other writers do not make this distinction (Vyavahāramayükha, Kane's Notes, p. 214). * These texts supply the definition of Kanyāgata (Obtained with the Girl) and Paivāhika' (Marriage-portion)-(Smstichandrikā, pp. 640-641). These texts describe that Marriage-portion which is not joint property (Vivādaratnākara, p. 503). The term 'vaivāhikam', 'marriage-portion', does not stand for only that which is given to the man by his Father-in-law; it has a technical significance, which is explained in these texts-(Vivādachandra 21.2-5, 6). 'Kanyāgatam' is what has been obtained in marriage in the manner described in such rules as—That is the Arşa form of marriage in which the bride's Father receives a pair of bullocks and so forth'-(Yājňavalkya 1.59).—Here also, the property in question would be impartible, like "Gains of Learning', only if it involved no drawing upon the ancestral property--(Vyavahāramayukha, p. 128). 'Bhāryayā sahāgatam'--obtained at the time of marriage-(Dāyanirnaya, t. Unlearned?-i.e. devoted to Agriculture, Trade, Royal Service and so forth. In this case no attention is to be paid to the larger or smaller amount of property acquired by each of them severally. But even so, if one of them happen to acquire a very large property, that of course is not to be divided among others. This text, in reality, is meant to be prohibitive of the Preferential Share of the eldest Brother.- If the difference in the properties acquired by them severally is small, then the division shall be equal.-—"The property regarded as non-ancestral', -this clearly indicates that this same rule applies also to the case of childless persons- (Medhätithi). In case all of them are unlearned, and have acquired wealth by going about here and there, without any detriment to the paternal property;--if the wealth has been acquired by Agriculture and other means, with the help of the paternal property; --then no Preferential Share is to be given to the eldest Brother. This is the meaning of the property being 'regarded as non-ancestral :-(Sarvajñanārāyana). If any wealth has been acquired by all the Brothers, by means of Agriculture, etc., then this being the self-acquired property of the Brothers,--and not ancestral p. 126).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 221 In continuation of the term 'self-acquired property', Gautama (28.31) says- [951] . The unlearned one should divide equally.'* And Vashiştha- [952] ‘Among these, if any one has acquired something by himself, he should receive two shares in it.' If from among several Brothers, any one acquires wealth with the help of the joint property, by means of Agriculture and other means, he should receive two shares out of what he has earned and the others shall receive one share each.† And Vyāsa- [953] 'If any one of the Brothers, while depending upon the joint property, acquires, through valour and such other means, any such property as Conveyances and Weapons, I-the Brothers shall share that property; two shares out of it shall go to the acquirer and the remainder shall be divided equally among the rest.' The term 'ādi' t' and such other means ') connotes kind, method; and the Bahuvrihi compound 'shauryādi'connotes methods of the same character as the one mentioned, i.e. any particular method which is specially conducive to the same end; hence Learning' also becomes included. The following objection may be urged :-"It has been declared before that whatever has been acquired through Learning, Valour and the like, even with the help of the joint property, is impartible; and what is said in the present text goes directly against that". -it shall be divided equally among them; as in what is non-ancestral, the eldest Brother shall not receive a Preferential Share-- (Kullūka). If the Brothers are devoid of learning, and yet make an effort to acquire wealth, the division of this wealth shall be equal, in all properties not-ancestral; in the case of the latter, the division being unequal, as there is a Preferential Share for the eldest Brother.--'Apitryé'-apart from the ancestral property, in which there is Preferential Share.-The sense is that those who have no learning and have made no effort in the acquiring of the wealth, shall have no share in the wealth-(Rāghavā. nanda). 'Ihātaḥ-by such efforts as Agriculture and the like; when every one has worked according to his capacity,movery one is entitled to share in the property-Apitrya -i.e. in the case of division not being made by the Father; in the case of division made by the Father, unequal division has been permitted-(Nandana). When all the Brothers are unlearned, and acquire wealth by Agriculture and other means,—in this property, which is not-ancestral, the division shall be equal, and no one shall receive a Preferential Share by reason of his having acquired a larger amount than the others (Vivādaratnākara, p. 508). Even when there is no ancestral property, if the unlearned Brothers have acquired varying amounts of wealth, the division shall be equal, and one who may have acquired a larger amount shall not receive a larger share(Vivādachandra 21.2.9). 'Inā --Agriculture and other efforts.- Apitryēk-without the help of the ancestral property--(Vyavahāramayukha, p. 128). "Ihā'Agriculture, etc. There is to be no Preferential Share, such as the twentieth part and the like,-in this case (Vibhāgasāra, 9.1-10). ** Unlearned'-i.e. not possessed of any such learning as would make the acqui. sition such as should belong exclusively to the acquirer alonem(Vivādaratnākara, p. 508). † For notes, see under Text No. 899, where the same text has been quoted. * In this text as quoted above (No. 898) the reading is 'vähanādikam' for 'vāhanāyudham'.

·222 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI Answer. Not so, because what was said before was with reference to the 'Gains of Learning' and 'Gains of Valour', etc. in the technical sense assigned to these terms by Katyāyana and others (Text Nos. 944, 647); while what is said in the present context is in reference to the effects of learning of kinds other than those contemplated by the technical definitions. * SECTION (H)-STRIDHANA Before proceeding to deal with the partition of 'Strīdhana' (Woman's Property), ,-We set forth the definition of Stridhana'. In regard to the detailed connotation of the term 'Stridhana', Manu (9.194) and Katyāyana declare as follows:- [954] '(1) What is given before the Fire, (2) What is given at the time of Departure, (3) What is given in token of Love, (4) What is given by the Mother, (5) What is given by the Brother, and (6) What is given by the Father, Stridhana' has been declared to be of these six kinds.' 6 'Sixt kinds'-What is meant is that the number is not less than six. f The first three of these have been thus defined by Katyāyana * For notes, see under Text No. 898 above. † (1) 'Adhyagni'-what is obtained from any person at the time of the Marriage Homo;(2) the customary presents received at the time of going to the Husband's house ;--(3) what is given by the Husband at the time of dalliance all this is Strīdhana ; that also is Strīdhana which the Woman receives from her Mother and other relatives (Sarvajñanārāyana). (1) The term 'adhyagni' is an Indeclinable.-What is given to the Girl at the time of Marriage, near the Fire, by her Father and others is called the Adhyagni Strīdhana, as defined by Katyāyana.-(2) What is obtained by the Girl when she is being taken to the Husband's house is called the Adhyāvāhanīka, as defined by Kātyāyand.-(3) What is given by the Husband on occasions of love-making.-- (4), (5) and (6)-Whatever is given on subsequent occasions by the Mother, Brother and Father.--These are the six kinds of Strīdhanam(Kullūka). (3) What is given by the Husband at the time of dalliance and on festive occasions (Raghavānanda). (1) 'Adhyagni' is what is received by the Girl from any person, near the nuptial Fire.-(2) ' Adhyāvāhana' is going from the Father's to the Husband's house,--what is obtained at the time of this going is ' Adhyāvābanika':-(3) What is given by the Husband's parents in token of affection at the time that the Girl bows down to them ;--the meaning is that these six kinds of property are the Woman's own, whatever else she acquires later on belongs to her Husband-(Nandana). What Manu means by speaking of the 'six kinds' is that the number of the varieties cannot be less than siit, it does not mean that it cannot be more. These have been defined by Kätyāyana(Mitākşarā, p. 843), Adhyagni'-what is given by any one at the time of Marriage.--Adhyāvāhanika'--the presents that follow the Bride when she is being taken to the Bridegroom's house. Medhātithi has described the Adhyavāhanika as what has been given to the Bride by her Father-in-law and others at the time of her being carried back to her Father's house from the Bridegroom's house; this also may be accepted; as it stands on the same footing as the preceding-Dattañchaprītitaḥ-what is given by her Father-in-law and other relations, through love aroused by her character, virtue and efficiency.—Six kinds '—this is added for the purpose of precluding the possibility of there being less, not of excluding a larger number; as we find that there is yet a seventh kind of Strīdhana, the Adhivedanika, mentioned by Yājñavalkya (Pivādoratnākara, p. 522). - What is received from the Mother, etc., etc.',- at any time during her life, for her maintenance (Smytichandrikā, p. 652). * Adhyagni-what is given by any one at the time of Marriage. Adhyāvāhanika' what is given at the time of the Dvirāgamana (Bride's going to the house of the ·NHERITANCE-PARTITION 223 [955] 'What is given to Women at the time of Marriage, near the Fire, has been called by the Wise the Adhyagni Stridhana.' 'Is given'-by any one; that this is meant is shown by the absence of any restrictive term. [956] 'Whatever is obtained by the Woman at the time that slie is being taken away from her Father's house has been called the Adhyārāhanika Stridhana.' That is, whatever she receives from any person at the time of her Dvirā. gamana (Gaunā) is her Adhyavāhanika Stridhana. Again- [957] 'Whatever is given to the Woman, through love, by the Father-in-law or Mother-in-law, at the time of her bowing down to their feet is called the Lavanyārjita Stridhana.' 'Lāvanya', 'Charm', stands for modesty, efficiency and such other good qualities. The meaning is that at the time that the Bride bows down to the feet of the Father-in-law and other relatives,-and she is found to be possessed of modesty and other qualities, they make presents to her,-and these presents constitute the third kind of Strīdhana. The other three kindsm-given by the Mother, Brother and Father,-are quite clear.* The 'Adhivedanika' is the seventh kind of Stridhana, as defined by Yājñavalkya (r. 148) [958] "To the superseded Wife, one should give an equal amount as Adhi. vedanika (Compensation for Supersession).' When the Husband has married a second Wife, the first Wife becomes 'adhivinnā', 'superseded'; at the time of this supersession, her Husband makes a present to her (by way of Compensation); this is what is called the Adhivedanika' Stridhana.t < Bridegroom),- also known as Yautuka, Dowry.-Pritidatta?-what is given to the Bride by her Father-in-law and others at the time of her bowing to them, which is also known as the 'Pädavandanika'.- What is given by the Mother, etc., etc. in all this there is no restriction as to time. Thus there are six kinds of Strichana (Vibhāgasära, 9.2-4). * Near the Fire'-this stands for the whole time of Marriage, from the Nändi. shraddha down to the final obeisance to the Bridegroom. What is got during all this time is called 'Adhyagnika'. This is also called 'Yautuka' (Dowry)-so called because it is given at Marriage which brings about an intermingling of the bodies of the Bride and the Bridegroom-(Dāyanirnaya 10.2-9). † In a case where a Wife has become superseded by her Husband marrying a second Wife, she shall receive the same amount that has been spent over the second marriage; if the superseded Wife has had no other Strīdhana given to her;-ia case other Štrīdhana had been given, she shall receive half of the said amount.This applies to those cases of supersession where there have been no circumstances justifying the supersession—(Vishvarūpa). When the Husband marries another Wife while his former Wife is still living, this latter is said to be 'superseded'; such a superseded Wife shall receive as Adhi. vedanika'-compensation for supersession-an amount equal to what may have been given to the newly-married Wife. This compensation shall be given only in cases where no Strīdhana has been previously given; if Strīdhana has been previously given, then she is to be given, -on account of compensation, that amount which would make her Strīdhana equal to what has been given to the newly-wedded Wife (Aparārka). A Wife is called 'superseded' when her Husband takes another Wife; she is to receive as Adhivedanika-compensation for supersession--an 'equal amount', the amount spent over the new marriage.--This is to be given only in case the ·224 VIVADACHINTAMANI l'isizu (17.18), however, says as follows:- (959] 'What has been given by the (1) Father, (2) Mother, (3) Friends, and (4) Brothers,-(5) what has been received in the presence of Fire,—(6) what is received on Supersession,-(7) the Fee (Shulka),—and (8) the subsequent Presents (dnvādhēya),[these constitute the Stridhana]. Of these, the first six have been already defined. As regards the 'Fee' (Shulka), says Kātyāyana- [960] "What is obtained for the work of looking after the Household, the Furniture, the draught Cattle, the milch Cattle, and Ornaments-has been called the Fee (Shulka).' That is, what the Wife obtains from the Master of the House, in connection with the working of the Household, the Furniture and other things is called the 'Shulka' (Fee).* Again- 1961] "I\hatever is obtained by the Woman, after her marriage, from her Husband's family or from the family of her relatives is called Anvādh@ya Strīdhana. Thus there are ten kinds of Strīdhana.t superseded Wife has not received her Strīdhana previously, either from her Father-inlaw or Husband. In case she has received it, she is to receive half of the said amount;-i.e. that which, along with the Strīdhana previously given, would make up the amount spent over the new marriage-(Mitäkşarā). If she has previously received her Stridhana, she shall receive only half of what has been given to the new wife-(Viramitrodaya-ſīkā on Yājñavalkya). She is called 'superseded' over whose head the second marriage has taken place -(Vivādaratnākara, p. 523; Vivādachandra 23.1-8). The Wife is 'superseded' over whose head the Husband has married again; to such a Wife shall be given, on account of her supersession, ornaments and other things, equal to what has been given to the second Wife, with the condition-'if no Stridhana has been given to her'. 'Adhivedanika' is what is given to the first Wife at the time of marrying the second Wife-(Vīramitrodaya, p. 690; also Vibhāgasāra 9.2–9). This text is cited in support of the view that if the Wife has had her Strīdhand, she shall be given only half the share given to a Son-(Smrtitattva II, p. 166). Though the Text speaks of the superseded' Woman only, yet it applies to all those Women who have received no Strīdhana-so say the Dāyabhāga and others --(Dāyanirnaya 18.2-10). * As this text stands in the original of Vişnu-Smrti, the term 'Shulka' appears to stand, as usual, for the Nuptial Fee (see Jolly-Sacred Books of the East, p. 69). But the Chintamani and the Vivādaratnākara (p. 525) both take the term in an entirely unusual sense; the latter remarks—The Shulka is the money that is given to the Woman by the servants of the House, by way of bribe for keeping them in the good graces of the Master'. This again is different from the explanation of the Chintā mani above. Six kinds have been defined by Manu under Text 954 above,—the seventh, the Adhivedanika, has been defined by Yājñavalkya in Text No. 958 above;-- eighth is the Shulka, defined in Text 960,--and the ninth is the Anvādhēya, which, it seems, has been counted as two--(1) what is obtained from the Husband's family, and (2) what is obtained from the family of her relatives. This has been held to be Strīdhana'-this has to be supplied in the Text (Mitākṣarā, p. 845). After marriage'-This brings out the significance of the name 'Anvādhēya'- "what is obtained (adheya)''after the marriage (anu) -(Smrtichandrikā, p. 660). The term 'bandhu' stands for the Father and Mother. Thus the meaning is that whatever is obtained after her marriage from her paternal and maternal relatives, and from her Husband and the Husband's relatives, is called 'Anvādh@ya' --(Dāyabhaga, pp. 71-72).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 225 All these (ten kinds of Stridhana) constitute the 'Saudāyika Property' (Dowry) of Women; as has been explained by Kātyayana in the following text [962] 'Whatever is obtained by the married or unmarried girl, at her Husband's or her Father's house, or from her Brother or her parents, - has been declared to be her Saudāyika (Dowry).' The term 'Husband's' also has to be construed with at the house'. -Sārdham' is a wrong reading.–From the Brother-is only by way of an illustration (standing for relatives in general).--Hence what is meant is that what the Girl, married or unmarried, obtains from the Father or the Father's family, is all her 'Saudāyika' (Dowry). All that has been said in explanation of this is only an amplification of this principle.* As regards the using of this Saudāyika (Dowry or Stridhana), the same authority (Kātyāyana) declares as follows:- [963) (A) After having obtained the Saudāyika property, Women are free to do what they like with it; since it has been given to them through kindness, as a means of livelihood.' (964) (B) In regard to the Saudāyika property, Women have been declared to be free to do what they like,mto sell it or give it away;- even so with regard to immoveable property.' What is meant is that in the matter of whatever she has obtained from tlie family of her origin, even of immoveable property,--the Woman is free to give away or otherwise dispose of. f Thus there are ten kinds of Strīdhana; all this is what constitutes the Saudāyika' of Women; which is defined by Katyāyana (Text No. 961). Saudāyika Property thus is synonymous with 'Strīdhana'. The meaning is that what is obtained by the Girl at her Father's place or elsewhere, from her Brother or Parents, is called “Saudāyika';-the term being derived from Sudāya' -(Bālambhatti on Mitäksarā, p. 844). The construction is patyuh grhē-pituh ghê '-'at her Husband's house and at her Father's house'.-'from her Brothers or Parents';--this is only by way of illustration; what is meant is that whatever a Girl obtains, either before or after her marriage, at her Father's or her Husband's house, from her Brother or Father or other relatives, is her Saudāyika property--(Vivādaratnākara, p. 510). This sums up in brief the definition of Saudāyika', as anything that a Woman has received, before and after marriage, from her Father's and Husband's family-(Vibhagasāra 10.1-1). † Antshamsya'-freedom from harshness; in order to save her from harsh treatment, her Father or other relatives have provided for her maintenance.- Thus in regard to Saudāyika property, including immoveable property, Women are free to do what they like-(Vivādaratnākara, pp. 510-512). In regard to her Saudāyika property, the Woman is free to do what she likes, during her Husband's life-time as well as after his death-(Smrtichandrikā, p. 654). Of the Saudāyika immoveable property, a Woman may make what use she likes -(Dāyabhāga, p. 76). Saudāyika' is what has been obtained from one's. Sudāyas-i.e. the Father, the Mother and the Husband's relatives.—'As she likes-i.e. for pious purposes (Smrtitativa, II, pp. 184 and 190). These texts declare the Woman's freedom to do what she likes in regard to some kinds of property (Vyavahāramayūkha, p. 155). In regard to her Saudāyika property, the Woman is free to do what she likes (Vivādachandra 22.1-2). From all these texts of Kätyāyana, it is clear that in regard to immoveable property also, the Woman is free to give or sell it; but in regard to what she has received from her Husband, she has this freedom only in regard to moveable property, it does not extend to immoveable property-(Vibhāgasära 10.1-1). 15 ·226 VIVĀDACHINTĀMANI In regard to the Saudāyika property, says Āpastamba- [965] 'The Ornaments are the Wife's; also the family-property, according to some." 'The Wife's '-—'property' is understood.–Family-property'-that is, all that was obtained at marriage and other occasions from the Father's or the Husband's family.* With reference to 'Ornaments', say Afanu (9.200) and Vişnu [966] 'The Heirs shall not take the Ornament that may have been worn by a Woman during her Husband's life-time; they become degraded if they do take it.' Even though the Ornament may not have been given to her by her Husband, if she has worn it with his permission, it becomes, by that mere fact of wearing, her property;--so says Medhâtithi. In regard to this, as to other moveable and immoveable property, the Woman is free to give away or sell,-according to the text of Katyāyana quoted above.t & *"Jñāti-dhanam'-such portion of the property as may have been given to her as the marriage-portion-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 509). of During the Husband's life-time, whatever Ornament may have been worn by the Woman, or what may have been given to her for her adornment, this the Sons shall not take while she is alive; after her death, of course, they divide it among themselves---(Sarvajñanārāyaṇa). If an Ornament has been worn by the Wives loved by the Father during his life-time, the Sons shall not take it when they are dividing the Father's property among themselves (Kullūka). If something has been given to a Woman by her Husband for the purpose of adornment, if her Brothers-in-law or others take it from her they incur sin- (Rāghavānanda). Inasmuch as 'Ornaments' have not been specifically mentioned among Strīdhana', there might be an idea that as forming part of the Father's property, they should go to the Sons; this text serves to preclude that ideam (Nandana). Dāyāda'-Sons;-'tam'-Ornament;--'te'--the Sons (Ramachandra). This refers to Ornaments that have been worn constantly-(Aparārka). Ornaments should remain with those by whom they have been worn; those that have not been worn shall be divided. "Women' have been mentioned only by way of illustration, what is asserted is not restricted to Women only_(Mitāksarā, p. 639). The Prakāsha says that, according to Medhătithi, even though the Ornament may not have been actually given to her, if she has worn it with her Husband's permission, it should not be taken away from her by the coparceners (Vivādaratnākara, p. 509). 'Worn i.e. in which the exclusive ownership of the Woman has been produced by the fact of its having been a loving gift-(Madanapārijāta, p. 686). As regards the Ornaments of the Women, even though they may have been made out of the common property, they shall not be divided-(Vivādachandru 21.2-8). Worn' constantly; if the Omament has been worn by her constantly, it shows that there is no trick or fraud in it, and hence it becomes certain that the thing is the Woman's own Strīdhana.--"Dāyādāḥ-Daughters and other heirs-(Smrtichandrikā, p. 559). Dhrtaħ-given by her Husband and others and worn by her—(Vyavahāramayükha, p. 156). Wom'.with her Husband's permission (Vibhāgasāra, 10.1-4). The opinion of Mishra (Vāchaspati ?) is not favoured by the followers of Dāyabhāga-(Dāyanirnaya 21.1-7). 15B ·INHERITANCE-PARTITIOX 227 Vārada (967) What has been given to the Woman by her Husband, through love, she may, even on his death, enjoy it as she likes, or give it away;with the exception of immoveable property.' Thus the conclusion is that in regard to the inuveable property given to her by her Husband, the rights of the Woman are absolute-but not so over the immoveable property. This is the settled rule regarding the Sandāyikn property (Stridhani) of Women.* On this point, says Kātyāyana- [968] '(A) On the death of her Husband, the sonless lidow can use her Husband's property as she likes; faithful to her Husband's bed, she shall dwell with her elders and enjoy the property quietly till her death; after that the heirs shall receive it. During his life-time, she shall take care of the property. Otherwise (i.e. in case he has left no property), she shall pass her days among his family. "Bharty-dāya' is Husband's property. It is of two kinds-(a) that which, on the Husband's death, devolves upon the Woman, on account of there being no other heirs to receive it, and (b) that which, during the Husband's life-time, has come into the Woman's possessions through his acquiescence.-In regard to the former (a), it is said that -- On the Husband's death, the IT'oman can use it as she likes.'-This, however, refers to property other than immoveable; in regard to immoveable property, the declaration is that she shult enjoy the property quietly till her death, after which the heirs shall receive it.' 'Quietly-economically, not spending too much.-The sentence the sonless IV idow faithful to her Husband's berl, etc.'sets forth a qualification which justifies her accession to the property.--In regard to the second kind of property (6) (which has come to her, during the Husband's life-tiine, through his acquiescence and permission), it is declared that 'during his life. time she shall take care of this property'.-'Otherwise'-i.e. in case the Husband has left no property at all, the Widow shall pass her days among her Husband's family:-Such is the meaning (of the four lines of Katyāyana's text). † * The Woman is free to do what she likes in regard to what she has got from her Husband in token of love; but not in regard to immoveable property- (Vivādachandra 22.1-). What is meant is that, even on the death of her Husband, the Wife is not free to do what she likes with the immoveable property given to her by her Husband. The word "yathakāman' connotes freedom to do what one likes.-Thus the con. clusion is that in regard to her Saudāyika property, as also to the loring gifts apart from immoveable property, the Woman is free to do what she likes-while in all other cases, even in the matter of her Stridhana property, she is not so free (Smộtichandrikā, p. 56). The addition of the qualification given by her Husband' implies that in regard to immoveable property, other than that given by her Husband, she is free to give it away--(Dayabhāga, p. 77; Smrtitattva, II, p. 184), What is meant is that in regard to the immoveable property given by her Husband, all that the Woman is entitled to is to reside (in the house) and enjoy it in other ways, not to sell it or give it away or dispose of it in any other way(Vīramitrodaya, p. 691). In regard to immoveable property given to her by her Husband, the Woman is not free to do what she likes (Vyavahāramayükha, p. 155). † All the digests which explain the words of the two verses have taken them in the above manner; and it is beyond doubt that in the above interpretation, the explanation of the sentence "Kșapayēt tatkulēnyathā' is forced. The simple meaning of the lines is as follows:-(a) On the Husband's death, the Woman shall use the Husband's property as she likes;—(6) during his life-time she shall take ·228 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI Thus then, in regard to the immoveable property of her Husband, even when it has become transferred to the Wife, she does not have the right to give away or otherwise dispose of that property; that this is also meant by the texts follows from the fact that information on this point is wanted just as much as on those expressly stated. If this were not meant then the need of information in regard to the laws on this point would remain unfulfilled. This same argument also disposes of the objection that has been raised regarding the incompatibility of these texts being introduced in the context dealing with the Saudāyika property: because the 'need of information' is always more potent than mere 'Context'. The fact of the matter is that -just as, in accordance with these texts, Women have no right to give away or otherwise dispose of the immoveable property given to them by their Husbands, so also they have no right to sell or give away the Husband's immoveable property that has come into her possession (on his death). Such is the opinion of the Prakasha and the Ratnākara also. This same law applies also to the case where her Husband's property llas devolved upon the Woman, through the Son and other heirs of her Husband; because here also the said information is needed and it has nowhere been asserted that the said law applies only in those cases where the property has come to the Woman directly from her Husband.* care of the property, or spend it over his family; (c) the sonless Widow, faithful to the Husband's bed and living with her elders, shall enjoy the property quietly till her death, after which the heirs shall receive it'.—The commentators had recourse to the complicated interpretation because they felt compelled to thrust upon these texts the distinction between 'moveable' and `immoveable' property. (A.) In regard to what has been given to the Woman by her Husband, her freedom lies with property other than immoveable. The 'Husband's property coming to the Wife may be of two kinds-(1) that in which the Wife's ownership has been created on the Husband's death by reason of there being no other person entitled to inherit it; and (2) that in which her ownership is there during the Husband's life-time by virtue of her relationship to him.-In regard to (1), the Wife is entitled to do what she likes with all but the immoveable property; while in regard to (2) it is added—she should take care of the property' -i.e. in obedience to his wishes.-Such is the explanation according to the Prakāsha; according to Halāyudha and Pärijäta however, the term 'bhartsdāya' stands for the Stridhana property given by the Husband.-The former is the correct view (Vivādaratnākara, p. 512). (B) In regard to the immoveable property, it is said that she shall enjoy it till her death, after which the coparceners shall obtain it (ibid., p. 511). (A) Bhartsdāya' is what has been given to her by her Husband; in regard to this, she is free to do what she likes, only after her Husband's death; during his life-time, she is to take care of it,-i.e. use it only with his permission- (Smrtichandrikā, pp. 654-655).—(B) 'Ksāntā --bearing with all the obstacles that her coparceners place in the way of her making use of the property. This refers to cases where the Husband having been undivided from his coparceners, her Father-inlaw and others happen to be either unable to protect and maintain her, or engaged in other kinds of business, and the Widow has therefore taken by herself the undivided property for the purpose of maintaining herself-(ibid., p. 677). (A) What is meant is that when her Husband is dead, the Widow can freely make use of the property given to her by her Husband; but during his life-time, she shall take care of it; i.e. she shall not be too liberal with it (Dāyabhāga, p. 74).—(B) The Husband's immoveable property the Widow shall only enjoy, she cannot give it away-(ibid., 22.1-7). *As she likes'-i.e. for pious purposes-(Smſtitattva, II, p. 190). (4) When her Husband's property passes into her possession, on his death, the Widow may make what use of it she likes. But she shall only enjoy it as she likes, she shall not spend it in improper ways-(Vivādachandra 22.1-2-4). (B) Living in the Husband's house, with her elders-Father-in-law and the rest--the Widow shall enjoy her Husband's property, but she shall not be free to give it away, pledge or sell it. After her death, the property shall go to her Daughter and uthers entitled to inherit the property; it shall not go to the Agnates; the claims of these latter being lower than those of the Daughter and others, on account ·INHERITANCE-PIRTITION 229 6 Reverting to the subject-matter of the context (i.e. Strīdhana) Devala says- [969] 'Property given for Maintenance, Ornaments, Fee and Gifts,--these should be Strīdhana; the Woman herself shall enjoy this, and her Husband shall not be entitled to it, except in abnormal times of distress.' 'Vrtti?-property given for maintenance.-'Ābharana:-Ornaments.- Shulka'-what is given to the Girl by one seeking to marry her: ie. the Vuptial Fee.-'Läbha'-gifts obtained from relatives.-All this is 'Stridhana'. * He continues [970] 'If the Husband spends it in inuproper gifts or makes other use of it, he should repay it to the Wife, with interest; but for the Son's troubles, he can make use of the Stridhana property.' That is, without the life's consent, le should not spend the said property in frivolous gifts or make use of it; but both these-gift and use have to be made for the purpose of relieving the Sons of their troubles.† of having been interrupted by the intervention of the Widow-Dissabhāga, pp. 171-172). (4) During the Husband's life-time, she shall take care of the property, a. she has no absolute right over it-(Vithāgurãrui 14,1-3).-(B) On the Husband's death, with the exception of the iminoveable property, the rest of it she shall enjoy as long as she lives, and on her death, the property goes to the coparceners. If there is no property, she should pass her days in the Husband's family. In regard to immoreable property, the Woman has no right to give or sell it. Hence there is no conflict between the tests of Vārada and Kātyāyana. Thus in regard to the immoreable property that has come to the Woman from her Husband, she has no right to give or sell it; but over such immuveable property as forms part of her . Saudāyika Property', she has perfect right to do what she likes.--This refers to the Husband's property which has passed on to the Woman, either directly or through her Son. But she is entirely free to do what she likes in regard to such immoreable property as she may have acquired herself by her own efforts, either during the Husband's life-time or after his death. Because the general principle is that one is free to do what one likes in regard to what he has himself acquired. Nor is there any text that denies such freedom. It is on the saine principle that when the Wife has offered the funeral cake to her Husband, and thereby acquired his immove. able property, she is regarded, in practice, to be free to do what she likes with it. This same reason lends strength to the custom that the Appointed Son of the wealthy Woman succeeds to the said immoveable property--(Vibhāgasāra 10.2-2). (B) This refers to cases where the Tife inherits the Husband's property * Faithful, etc.'-i.e. not having recourse to any other man;-'living with elders, in her Husband's family;— quietly «i.e. not spending much, nor disposing of it by gift or sale or mortgage. - Heirs-the Daughter and the rest-Däynnirnaya 5.2-4). * Vivādaratnākara (p. 312) supplies exactly the same explanations as the above. The Woman's maintenance property also is her Strīdhana, with which she is free to do what she likes-(Virādachandra 22.1-10). Výtti' is property given by the Father for her maintenance;-Labha' is what is earned; i.e. what she receives in connection with the fasts and observances that she keeps for propitiating the goddess Pārvatī is also her Strīdhana. The term Svayameva'--'herself-serves to exclude her children; the exclusion of the Husband being separately emphasised in the next sentence—'the Husband is not entitled '; of course, with the exclusion of the Husband, the Brother and other remoter relations become naturally excluded-(Smstichandrikā, p. 657). Tștti' is what is given by the Father and others for her maintenance ; -Lübha' -what is obtained from somewhere for the purpose of propitiating the goddess Gaur-(Vīramitrodaya, p. 693). 'Výtti '-property given to her by her Father and others for her maintenance : "Lābha'-interest earned. † 'Bhoga'-enjoyment of Woman, foods and drinks, etc.--For the curing of the Son's troubles one may make use of the Strīdhana—(4 parārka). 6 $ ·230 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI IVith the Wife's consent, however, the said property may be used by the Husband even in normal times;- as declared by the same authority in the following text- [971] 'If he makes use of the property with her consent and in a loving manner,—then he should be made to repay the Principal only, when he comes by property of his own.'* [972] 'On coming to know that the Husband is ill, or in trouble, or harassed by creditors,-if the Wife has spent money through love,-he should repay it of his own accord (Katyāyana). On finding her Husband or others to be ill or involved in other troubles, if the Woman has spent out of her property,--that should be repaid by the Husband or others of their own accord. Yajňavalkya (2.148) — [973) During Famines, for the performance of pious acts, during disabling illness, if the Husband has made use of the Strīdhana, he need not repay it to her.' 'Pratirodhakēt qualifies vyādhau', i.e. during such illness as disables the man from performing pious acts.--What is meant thus is that if the Husband has made use of the Stridhana, when he was unable to perform, in any other way, the obligatory pious duties,-then he should not be made to pay it against his wish. † If one obtains money from his Wife on the pretext of some urgent business, but spends it in making frivolous gifts and enjoyment, he should refund it to her, along with interest. For the curing of the troubles of the Son however, he may spend the Strīdhana even without the Wife's consent-(Vivādaratnākara, pp. 512-513). For the purpose of the treatment of the Son's diseases, the Strīdhana may be used even without the Woman's consent-(Vivādachandra 22.1-10). "Vytha'-without necessity, i.e. in normal times. What is stated here refers to cases where the expenditure has been incurred without the Woman's consent, but without compulsion or use of force of any kind; as the only retribution men. tioned is repaying with interest, without any penalties. The sentence, 'The Husband is not entitled except in times of distress' implies that even in times of distress, it is the Husband alone, and no one else, that is entitled to spend. It is to this end that we have the fourth line where 'Husband' is the Nominative understood after *arhati'.-The term 'Son'-stands for any member of the family.--Arti' stands for such trouble as cannot be got over without the expenditure of money. For the removal of such troubles and in times of distress, the Husband may spend the Strīdhana property, even without the Wife's consent-(Smrtichandrikā, p. 657). The Husband is forbidden to use it in making frivolous gifts or to spend it. But even the giving and the expenditure may be done for curing the ills of the Sons -(Vibhāgasära 10.2-8). * With her consent, he can use the property, even in normal times; and if he has the means to repay it, he should repay the Principal only--(Vibhāgasāra 10.2–8). † The implication of this text is that, if persons other than the Husband such as the Brother and the like-were to take the property, even in times of distress, -such as Famine and the like,-he would have to make it good. When a debtor is held up and told not to move without paying off the debt, it is called 'Sampratirodhaka', 'Distraint'; according to others, it means the time when the city is under siege-(Vishvarūpa). ‘Durbhikṣa'- scarcity of food-grains.—Dharmakārya'-such religious acts as are obligatory, not those that are voluntary.-Vyādhi '-is painful and prolonged illness; if the property is used for the treatment of such disease.—'Sampratirodha' is being kept in chains and the like.--On these occasions, if he has no means of his own, the Husband may use his Wife's money and free himself from these calamities. And if he is not possessed of the means of repaying it, he need not repay it to her.- ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 231 The exception to the above has been stated by Katyāyana in the following texts- [974] "If the man has two Wives, and does not approach the one concerned, then he should be compelled to repay what he had taken, even though it may have been given to him through love.* 6 This refers to cases where the man is faced with the cutticulty of not being able to raise a loan-1-4parārka). 'Durbhiksē’-during a Famine, for supporting the family; --for the purpose of performing such religious acts as must be performed ;-during illness; when he has been taken prisoner;- if on these occasions, the Husband, whu has no other means, use his Wife's money, he need not repay it. He must repay it if he uses it on any occasion other than these.No other relative of hers except the Husband shall use the Strīdhana during the Toman's life-time; because for such appropriation, penalties have been prescribed in several texts-(Jitākṣarā). Sampratirodhaka--when he has been made a prisoner.-The particle 'cha' implies the condition that the Husband has no means of his own, which goes with every one of the circumstances mentioned (Piramitroddaya-tīkā on Yājňavalkya). 'Pious act such as must be done._'Illness-such as to interfere with the man's carrying on his business. For the cure of such ills, if the Husband has made use of his Wife's money, he need not repay it-(Vivādaratnākara, pp. 513-314). Pious act'-such as must be done.—Sampratirodhakē' qualifying. vyādhau' -an illness which, if not cured, would make the man unable to carry on his business -(Vivādachandra 22.2-). 'Pious acts-obligatory, occasional and voluntary,--as also in some cases, that which is performed for the allaying of evil.— Sampratirodhakēthe distraint under which one has been put by his creditor and from which he cannot free himself without paying off the debt.-- Jakes use of his Wife's money'-on account of there being no other way out of the ditficulty:-"The Husband'-ho is poor and unable to repay the money; the implication is that, if possible, the money should be repaid (Smſtichandrikā, p. 658). Pious act as must be done.- Sampratirodhakē_in cases of arrest, imprisonment and the like. Under these circumstances, if the Husband has no other means, he may spend his Wife's money, and he need not repay it: that is, there is no rule making repayment compulsory. If he uses it under any other circum. stances, he must repay it-(Madanapārijāta, p. 670). Sampratirodhaka_In cases of arrest, etc. If the Husband has no means of his own, he may make use of the Wife's money, which he need not repay. Under other circumstances, he must repay it (Parāsharamadhava, p, 375). If during Famines and such other circumstances, the Husband is unable to live without drawing upon his Wife's property, he may take it; but not in any other case-(Dayabhāga, p. 77). * Pious acts'-i.e. the obligatory and occasional ones. 'Sampratirodhakawhen punished by the King with imprisonment. Váchaspati, however, has taken this term as qualifying 'Vyādhau', 'illness', and explained it to mean 'disabling :- (Vīramitrodaya, p. 694). Sampratirodhakë', when put by the crəditor or others under such distraint as interferes with his meals-(Smrtitattva, II, p. 185). The mention of the 'Husband' implies that the Stridhana shall not be used by others even in times of distress, such as Famine and the like.---'Pious actsthe obligatory ones.— Sampratirodhakë-in case of imprisonmental yavahāramayukha, p. 156). 'Sampratirodhake-is an adjective qualifying ' T'yâdhau'-'disabling illness '. The exception to this follows in the next text (No. 974)-(Vibhāgasāra, 11.1-2). *Sampratirodhakē when a creditor has put the Husband under distraint, by not allowing him to take his food and so forth-(Dāyanirnaya 5.2-2). * If the man, having used the Wife's money, marries another Wife and disregards the former Wife,-he should be compelled by the King to repay the money (Dāyabhāga, p. 78; also Piramitrodaya, p. 692). Dvibhāryah'--this supplies the reason for his not loving the former Wife. Should he discontinue to visit her even during her periods', he should be compelled to surrender to her what she may have given him, even through her love for him (Vibhagasära 1.1-2).

·232 VITĀDACHINTĀMANI [975] 'In a case where the Woman is deprived of food, clothing and residence, she may take away her own share in the property, from the coparceners. -Having obtained her money, she should live in her Husband's house; if afflicted with disease, she should, on the approach of death, go to her relatives ;-such is the opinion of Likhita.* [976] 'One addicted to evil ways, or immodest, or prone to waste wealth, or unchaste, does not deserve to have any Strīdhana. [977] 'The Stridhana that had been promised to her by her Husband should be given to her by the Sons in the same way as the Father's debts,- if she continues to stay in the Husband's home and does not go away to live in her Father's house.' † 'Bhajatë, etc., etc.'-That is, if the Husband does not meet her even during her courses ; -or if he does not provide her with food and clothing, then, even though she may have given him the money to relieve him of his illness and other troubles, he should be compelled to repay it. 'Prāptē, etc., etc.'-That is, when the money advanced has been recovered by the oman, she should continue to live in the Husband's house, and should not go away to her Father's house, ' Apakāra, etc., etc.'--That is, if the Woman is of such character, then even her Strīdhana should be taken away from her by her relatives. 'Bhartră, etc., etc.'-This is easily understood. SECTION (I) - PARTITION OF STRIDHANA On this subject, says Manu (9.192 and 193)- [978] 'When the Mother has died, all the uterine Brothers and uterine Sisters shall divide the Mother's property equally.'} [979) "If there are Daughters of those Daughters to those also something shall be lovingly given proportionately, out of the property of their maternal Grandmother.' * If & Wife does not receive food and clothing, she must be repaid what she may have given in token of love-(Vivādachandra 22.2-3 to 6). If the Husband does not provide food and clothing,--these also the Wife shall ostract from him by force (Dāyabhäga, p. 78). If the Husband fails to provide her with food, clothing and residence, the Wife shall take all these by force, For money enough to supply her with these. But only if she herself is free from defects and faults-(Viramitrodaya, p. 692). If the Husband does not supply her with food and clothing, she shall take from him even what she may have given to him for meeting the expenses of his treatment during illness, etc., etc.—(Vibhāgasāra 1.1-2), Having obtained her property, she shall live in her Husband's house; when afflicted with serious illness, she shall go to the house of her Husband's relations- (Vivādaratnākara, p. 514), † The term 'Šons includes the Grandsons also. This implies that over the Stridhana property of the Mother, the Sons have no right; so that the Strīdhana cannot be divided during the Mother's life-time-(Smrtichandrikā, p. 659). 'Promised' to the Wife (Vyavahāramayukha, p. 156). If the Father had promised that such and such a thing shall be given to her, then that must be given Vibhāgasāra 11.1-9). If the Father had promised some Stridhana to his Wife, but died without fulfilling the promise, the Sons should make good that promise(Dāyanirnaya 21.1-3). # [This text has been quoted and commented upon above as Text No. 869.]

·NHERITANCE-PARTITION 233 'Equally'-.e. without any unequal (preferential) shares. Sanā. bhayaḥ -uterine.* Of the Sisters, only the unmarried ones receive equal shares, as declared in the following text of Byhaspati. Brhaspati (25.87 [980] "The Strīdhana goes to the children; the Daughter also is entitled to share it, if she is not married; if she is married, she receives only in honorific present.' 'Apatyānām', 'children',-.e. the Sons.--Talarshini', 'entitled to share it';-as no particular part is definitely asserted, it follows that she shares the property equally. Samülhā'-i.e. married.—'llāramātralnm'.- some present, in proportion to the property. I p. 666). * If the married Daughters have died, the honorific trifle that should liava been given to them should be given to their Daughters, hy their maternal Uncles. -Prītipūrvakam'-of their own free will-(Sarvajärınıīrījuna). If there are unmarried Daughters of the Daughters, they should be given something out of the property of the maternal Granlınother;~ lovingly'-ie. ir a manner in which they may feel honoured-Kullükre. "Prītipūrvakam'-i.e. it is for pleasing theia: there is no cumpulsion-- (Rāghavānanda). 'Prītipůrcaklın'-indicates that it must be given Vandana). The Daughter's Daughters should be given the share that they deserve- (Ramachandra). If the Mother has Daughters as well as Daughter's Daughters, the latter alsu should be given something (Hitākşrırā, p. 850). 'Yathāṁshataḥ'—according as the property is large or small—(Pitādaratriākara, p. 516). When there are Daughters as well as Daughter's Daughters, the latter also shall be given something, -not a regular share in the property--(Madanapărijāta, Yathārhataḥ --[i.e. for ‘yathāṁshataḥ )--i.e. after considering the character of the persons concerned, the use to be made of the property, the relative poverty of those concerned and so forth.-'Lovingly'-the implication is that if the Uncles are affectionately inclined towards their Nieces, they will give them 'something', otherwise not-(Smrtichandrikā, pp. 661-662). This rule is for cases where there are Daughters as well as Daughter's Daughters-(Paräsharamādhara, p. 371). Something should be given to the Daughter's Daughters also-(Vyavahāramayūkha, p. 158). 'Pritipūrvakam'—if there is loving kindness, then alone it should be given -(Vibhāgasära 11.2.1). † Mānamätrakam' some little thing—(Aparārka). Apatya' here stands for Sons.--'To share it'-ie. to receive the same share as the son.-'Apratta'-unmarried. From this it follows that in Janu's text also (No. 978 above), it is the unmarried Daughters that are declared as having the same share as the Sons.-As regards the married Daughters, some small present may be given to them, in accordance with their position-(Vitādaratnākara, p. 516). To the married and settled Daughters also, something may be given in accordance with the property, and the remainder they shall divide in the prescribed manner (Vivādachandra 22.2-10). 'Apatyānām'-children, in the shape of Sons. In both lines, the particle 'cha' has the copulative force; hence both (Son and Daughter) together are the persons that divide the property--(Smſtichandrikā, p. 661). 'Apatyānān-male children (Parāsharamādhara, p. 372). The term 'apatya' stands for Sons. They share the Mother's property with her zumarried Daughters—(Däyabhāga, p. 79). ' .1patyānām-Sons; the Daughter being mentioned separately.- Entitled tu share it - equally with the Sons. —Honorific present'-as a mark of honour, she gets some little thing.---not a share equal to the Son's—(Viramitrodaya, p. 695). 'Entitled to share it'-i.e. to receive a share equal to the Son's. - Aprattā?- unmarried.—If there is a married Daughter, she shall get only an 'honorific present', --some little thing as a mark of respect. In case there are no unmarried Daughters, ·234 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Cintama (28.22)— 1981? 'The Strīdhana goes to the Daughters, who are unmarried and insettled.' 4 pratisthātā, ‘unsettled-i.e. childless; it means 'one whose Husband is poor and who is unfortunate',--according to he Ratnākara and others.-- These also are entitled, like the Sons, to the Mother's property. the married ones receive the same share as the Sons. This is what has been expressly asserted by Kätyāyana-(Vyavahāramayūkha, p. 158). A patyānām! --Sons.—The unmarried Daughters are to receive equal shares; the married ones receiving only an honorific present-(Vibhagasāra, 11.2-2). *Unscttled'-Those who have no means of subsistence; these are entitled to inherit the Mother's property-(Vibhāgasāra, 11.2-3). Here Gautama lays down the title of unmarried and unsettled Daughters to inherit the Mother's property.–Unsettled'-one who has no children, or who is poor or unfortunate- (Aparārka, p. 721). On the death of the Mother, her property is taken first of all by the Daughters; and among them, if there is one unmarried and another married, it is the unmarried one that gets it; and the married one gets it only when there is no unmarried Daughter. Among the married Daughters also, if one is 'settled' and another "unsettled, the unsettled one gets it. The particle cha' includes the settled' one also. Unsettled '- i.e. childless and poor. This rule does not refer to the Shulka' property of the Mother which goes to her uterine Brothers, according to Gautama (28.25) (litākṣarā, p. 849).- What is said here applies to the Father's property also— (ibid., p. 768). If there are unmarried and unsettled Daughters, these also shall receive the same share as their Brothers.-- Unsettled-one who has no one to support her, is childless, whose Husband has no property and who is unfortunato (Vivādachandra 22.2-9). Aprattā'-unmarried;-'apratisthitha'--poor-Madanapārijāta, p. 665). The Mother's Strīdhana, 'Adhyagni' and the rest (enumerated by Kätyāyana) goes to the unmarried Daughters, and to such among the married ones as are unsettled', and not to all. 'Unsettled '-i.e. childless, poor, unfortunate or widowed -(Smrtichandrikā, pp. 662-663). The meaning is that among the Daughters, if some are married and others unmarried, the Mother's Strīdhana goes to the unmarried ones;-among the married ones also, if some are rich and others poor, it goes to the poor ones—(Paräsharamādhava, p. 337). "Trosettled'-childless, poor, unfortunate, or widowed;--such is the explanation provided by A parārka and Kalpataru; the first two only, according to Vijñāneshvara and others. Though the text has used the common term "Stridhana', it stands for that particular kind of Strīdhana which is different from the three kinds of Strīdhana described before--(Vīramitrodaya, p. 697). Among the married Daughters, if one is rich and another poor, it is the latter that receives the property. Unsettled'--poor. In the term Strīdhana' in this text, the term 'Strī (Woman) includes the Father also,--so say the Traditionalists— (Vyavahāramayūkha, p. 141). This refers to the technical 'Štrādhana', other than that called the Anvādhāya' and that which has been given by the Husband in token of love-(ibid., p. 159).—In all these texts, the term Stridhana' is used in its technical sense-(ibid., p. 160). The term 'unsettled stands for those who, though married, are childless and without any property of their own; not having obtained a footing in the house of their Husbands-(Medhātithi on Manu 9.131). 'Unmarried'-not betrothed.-A Woman's Strīdhana is inherited first of all by her unmarried Daughter;--in her absence, it goes to the Daughter who has been betrothed, but not get married;-in her absence, it goes to the married Daughter with a Son and the married Daughter expecting a child, both of these are equally entitled ;--in the absence of these, the widowed and barren Daughters are equally entitled-(Dayanirnaya 11.1-7).- In the absence of all these Daughters, the property goes to the Sons; (ibid., 11.1-2). In the absence of the Son, the property goes to the Daughter's Son; then to the Son's Son; then to the Son's Grandson; after that to the Son of the dead Woman's Co-wife; then, the Co-wife's Grandson; and then the Co-wife's Great-grandson. In the absence of these it goes to the Husband;—then ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 235 Vanu (9.131)- [982] Whatever may be the Yautuka property of the Mother is the portion of the unmarried Daughter alone.' 'Yautuka'-is what has been obtained from the Father and others at the time of marriage.* < to her Brother; then to her Mother; then to the Father. In the event of the dead Woman having been married by the Isura or other lower forms of marriage, her property goes to the heirs first enumerated, down to the Co-wife's Great-grandson; after these, it goes to her Mother, then to her Father, then to her Brother, and last of all to her Husband: according to Manu 9.197--(ibid., 11.2). * The term 'Tautuka' (or Tautaka', as it is sometimes spelt) is usually applied to the exclusive property of a woman, of which she alone is the sole owner. Others apply it to what she obtains at the time of her marriage, and not to all that belongs to her; as it is only the former over which she has an absolute right; as it has been declared that-women become their own mistresses on obtaining presents at marriage', -Others again hold that the term applies to the savings that the young woman makes out of what she receives from her Husband for clothes, ornaments and for household expenses.—'Is the portion the unmarried Daughter's alone';- since the text has added the qualification unmarried', it is clear that what is said liere does not apply to one tho has been married. Further, the term 'eva', 'alone', sets aside the implications of the context (which is that of Appointed Daughters). Consequently, what is said here cannot apply to the .1ppointed Daughter (who would always be a inarried' one, as the appointing' is, as a rule, done at the marriage itself]-(Dedhatithi). Yautukan Strīdhana.-'Kumārībhāga' is the share of the unmarried Daughter; even if there be the Son, or the Appointed Daughter, or the Appointed Daughter's Son.-Thus then, even apart from the case of the Appointed Daughter, the Mother's Strīdhana must go to the unmarried Daughter Surinjianārāyam). On the Mother's death, the Mother's property goes to her unmarried Daughter; the Sons have no share in it-(Kullūka). 'Fautuka' is what has been obtained by the woman from her family. The particle *ēva' indicates that the said property goes to the unmarried Daughter, even then the Son of the Appointed Daughter is there~(Nandana). Yautaka' is Strīdhand-(Ramachandra). This shows that the unmarried Daughter has the first claim on the Mother's property--(4 parārka, p. 721). 'Yautuka' here stands for what has been given to the woman at the time of marriage by her Father and others.-Halāyudha, however, has explained the term as standing for what was given to the woman for the purchase of vegetables, etc. and which has become augmented by her efficient management. In such property of the Mother's, neither Sons nor married Daughters have any shares; but even married Daughters, if childless and unfortunate, receive equal shares in it (Tivādarretnākara, p. 517). Yautuka' is what is presented by people in general to the Bride and Bridegroom at the time of marriage, when they are seated together on one seat. The author of the Nighartu also has defined it as 'what has been given to the Bride and Bridegroom'.-But according to Dēvasvāmin, 'Yautaka' is the name given to what has been obtained by the woman from her Father's house, as distinguished from that obtained in her Husband's house. This view, however, is not acceptable; the distinction being merely imaginary.-If there are several unmarried Daughters, the said property is to be divided equally among them-(Smrtichandrikā, p. 662); Yautaka' is what has been obtained from the Father's family—(Parāsharamadhava, p. 372). Yautaka' is what is obtained at the time of marriage-(Dayabhāga, p. 82). Yautuka' is what is given to the Bride and Bridegroom when they are seated together at the time of marriage.-- Yautaka' and Yautuka' both forms are correct. When there are several unmarried Daughters, the property is divided equally.- [Dérasvāmin's opinion is not acceptable)-(Viramitrodaya, p. 696). 'Tautaka' is what has been obtained at the time of marriage and on other occasions by the woman seated together with her Husband-(Dyavahāramayukha, p. 158). . & ·236 VIVÄDACHINTĀMAŅI Vashiştha (17.46)- [983]. The females Daughters] shall share among themselves the Mother's Toilet-articles (or Marriage-presents]”. * Pärināyyam'-Olothes, Mirrors, Combs and such articles. * Yājñaralkya (2.117) [984] *What remains of the Mother's property, after the payment of debts, shall be divided among themselves by the Daughters,—and in the absence of the Daughters, by the offsprings (of the Daughters).' Of the Mother's property, what remains after the debts have been paid off,-i.e. the residue,- shall be divided by the Daughters among themselves; - and in the absence of these—Daughters,—by 'the offsprings '; i.e. the Daughter's Son and the Daughter's Daughter of the dead Mother (i.e. the Son and Daughter of the Daughters). That such is the rule is shown by the words of Ianu (Text No. 976). This refers to the clothes and other presents that the Mother may have received at marriage, which has been specified in the Brāhma and other approved forms. † This rule applies to only those cases where, apart from the Yautuka, there is other Strīdhana which could be shared by the Sons. If that were not so, then the Son, who would perform the Shraddha for the Mother, would become entirely excluded from her property--(Vibhagasāra 11.2-4). * 'Pārināyyan-Clothes, Mirrors, Bracelets and so forth-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 517; also Vibhagasāra 11.2-6). What belonged to the Mother at the time of marriage is to be divided among the Daughters-Vivādachandra 23.1.1). 'Pariņāyyamº-property obtained at marriage (Dāyabhāga, p. 82). What has been obtained by the Mother at the time of marriage goes first to the unmarried Daughter and, in her absence, to the married Daughter ;-even when there are Sons-(Smrtitattva II, p. 185). † Just as Sons are equal sharers in the Father's property, so are the Daughters in the Mother's property; they shall divide among themselves only what remains after the debts have been paid off; but they shall not be liable for the debts if the Mother has left no property.-"Have then the Sons nothing to do with the Mother's property ?"—No, it is not so; in the absence of Daughters, the 'Anvaya'-i.e. the Sons—come into the property.-Other people have explained the second sentence to mean that 'in the absence of the Daughter, the property goes to the Anvaya, Son, of the Daughter-But this is not right. Because there is a direct declaration in the Veda, to the effect that if there are both Son and Daughter, it is the Son that inherits the property'.--And it is only because of the declaration in the first sentence of the present text that the Daughters have the first claim-(Vishvarūpa). As regards the Mother's property, after the debts have been paid off, the residue shall be divided by the Daughters among themselves;-and in the absence of the Daughters, it goes to the offspring' of the Daughters; and in the absence of Daughters, as also of their offspring, the property goes to the Sons of the deceased Mother- (Aparārka). To the general rule that 'the Sons shall divide the property of the parents among themselves', the present text sets forth an exception: The Mother's property the Daughters shall divide among themselves, but only what remains after the paying off of the Mother's debts. The implication is that if the Mother's property is just enough to pay off the debts, or even less, it goes to the Sons, who have to pay the debts in any case. But if there is any property left after the paying off of the debts, that property goes to the Daughters. The reason for this lies in the fact that just as the ingredients of the Father's body are found to a larger extent in the Son's body than in the Daughters--so the ingredients of the Mother's body are found to a larger extent in the body of the Daughters; hence, if the property of the Father devolves upon the Sons, it is only right that that of the Mother should devolve upon the Daughters. The question arising as to who should receive the property if no Daughters of the deceased are alive, the answer is that in the absence of the Daughters, the property is to go to the Daughter's 'Anvaya', i.e. her Son and other descendants. Though there is already implied in the general rule that ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 237 Katyāyana- (985) '(4) In the absence of Daughters, the property goes to the Sons. (B) What had been given by the Relatives goes to the Relatives.- (C) In their absence, to the Husband.-(D) The Sisters, along with their Husbands, shall divide it with the Relatives.-Such is the law relating to Stridhana and its division.' (A) 'In the absence of Daughters, etc., etc.'--That is, the 'Toilet-articles', as also the 'Fautuka'-i.e. what was given to the deceased Mother at the time of her marriage, in the Brāhma or other approved forms, go to her Sons, in case there are no Daughters. Apart from these, whatever other property the woman may have left goes to both the Daughter and the Son, -as already explained before. (Vide Text No. 976.) (B) and (C) 'What had been given by the Relatives, etc., etc.'-\Vhat had been given to the deceased by Relatives other than the Father goes to the Brother and Sister,--but with this difference that if the Sister is unmarried she receives the same share as her Brother, while if she is married, she receives just some share in the property. This is what is meant by the sentence beginning with the Sisters'.-D) 'In their absence-i.e. if there are no the Sons divide the parents' property', yet it has been reiterated in order to make it quite clear. In case the Mother has had no Daughter at all, the property goes to the Son, directly-(Jitākşarā). As regards the Mother's property, what remains of it after paying off the debts, shall be divided equally among the sons and Daughters; but the Mother's debts shall be paid by the Sons. In the absence of Daughters,-i.e. if there are no Daughters living,--the Invaya-i.e. the Sons of the Daughters shall receive the share that would have been their Mother's, as declared by Janu (Text No. 976) and others (Viramitrodaya-Tīkā on Yājñavalkya). • Rņāt' of the Mother's debts;— shēşam'-what remains.What is meant is that after the Mother's debts have been cleared off, the unmarried and unsettled Daughters shall take what remains of her Dowry and her toilet-articles; and in the absence of the Daughters, the Anvaya,mi.e. the Son and other offsprings- of the Daughters shall take it.—This refers to cases where the deceased had been inarried in the Brāhma form of marriage-(Vivādaratnakara, p. 517). The Daughters shall take what remains of the Mother's property after the clearing off of the debts incurred by the Mother; but with this difference that if, among the Daughters, some are married and some unmarried, then the property shall go to the unmarried ones. Here first of all, the property is to go to the Daughters, and then to the descendants of the Daughters-Madanapārijāta, p. 665). What remains of the Mother's property after the paying off of her debts, is taken by the Daughters. It follows that if the Mother's property is just equal to, or less than, the amount of the debt, then it goes to the Sons (who have to pay the debt), even when the Daughters are thera-(Parăsharamādhara, p. 370). Some people hold that the term 'Anvaya' (Son) stands for the Son and descendants of the Daughters, while according to others, it stands for the Sons of the deceased Mother; and according to this latter view, the property goes to the Sons (of the deceased) if there are no Daughters. This is in keeping with Custom also-(Vyavahāramayukha, p. 159). What is said here regarding the Daughters receiving the Mother's property refers to such property of the Mother's as she may have acquired by spinning and such industries, as distinguished from the 'Stridhana' proper-(Ibid., p. 160). This refers to clothes and other things received in connection with her marriage which has been performed in the Brāhma form-(Vibhāgasāra, 11.2–7). So long as there are Daughters, the Sons are not entitled to share the Mother's property; when there are no Daughters, then, the Anvaya-Sons--are entitled to share it-(Dayabhāga, p. 58). 'In the absence of Daughters', the 'Anvaya',-the offspring or progeny, i.e. the Son, Grandson and the rest. In case the term 'Anvaya' is taken in the sense of the Sons of the deceased woman, then the second sentence would be a mere repetition of what has been said regarding the property of the 'Parents'-(Vāramitrodaya, p. 577).

·238 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Sons or Daughters, etc. of the deceased.--the property of the woman goes to the Husband.* janu (9.196) [984) (4) It is ordained that the property of a woman-married in the Brāhma, Daiva, Arşa, Gāndharva or Prājāpatya form--shall go to her Husband alone,--if she dies childless. [985] (B) But the property that may have been given to her on the occasion of the Asura or other (condemned) forms of marriage, has been held to belong to her parents, in the event of her dying childless.' Aprajasi'-Childless. * In the absence of Daughters and their offspring, the property goes to the Sons--(Aparārka, p. 721). --The second line (B) refers to the case of women married under the Āsura and other condemned forms of marriage-(Ibid., p. 753). The Clothes and Toilet-requisites and the Yautuka-property which had been given by the Father,-these kinds of Strīdhana go to the Son, if there is no Daughter; the Stridhand other than these goes to the persons mentioned before.--In the absence of all these, it goes to the Husband—(Vivādaratnākara, p. 518). (A) This refers to unmarried Daughters; and to the Yartuka property. (B) This refers to women married in a form of marriage other than the five commended ones (Brāhma, etc.)-(Smştichandrikā, p. 664). (A) The Mother's 'Toilet-articles and other presents-received at marriage performed in one of the commended forms,--as also the Yautuka given by her Husband, go to the Daughter; and failing her, to the Son;—the Strīdhana apart from the said two kinds goes to both, Son and Daughter.—(B) What had been given to her by her Relatives shall go to the Brother and Sister; the unmarried Sister receiving the same share as the Brother, and the married Sister receiving some little thing. In the absence of these, the property goes to the Husband of the deceased. This is what has been declared by Manu (vide below, Text No. 984)-(Vibhāgasāra, 11.2-9). 'In the absence of Relatives'.—This implies the absence of Brothers also- (Dayanirnaya, 11.2-9). † (A) The property of the woman married in one of the commended forms of marriage--either Strīdhana or otherwise-goes to her Husband, if she dies childless; it goes to her children, if she leaves any.-(B) To the parents,-not to the Husband (Sarvajñanārāyana). (A) In the five kinds of marriage, Brāhma, etc.—the six kinds of Strīdhana that belong to the woman go to her Husband, if she dies childless.- (B) The six kinds of Strīdhana, belonging to a woman married in any one of the condemned forms of marriage, go to her parents, if she dies childless (Kullūka). (A) If a woman dies childless, the property she had obtained from her Father and others at one of the five commended forms of marriage goes to her Husband.- (B) If she had been married under one of the condemned forms of marriage, it shall go to her parents.--Atītāyām', on her death—(Rāghavānanda and Rāmachandra). In the case of the woman married in the Gandharva form, there should be option; i.e. the property should go either to the Husband or to the parents; because in the second part (B) of the text, it is stated that in the case of the marriage having been in one of the forms of marriage-Asura and the rest--the property goes to the parents (and the Gandharva form is one of the condemned forms and is always classed with the Asura)—(Aparārka, p. 753). (A) In the event of her marriage having been in any of the commended forms, the property of the childless woman goes to her Husband; and (B) in the event of its having been in the Asura or other condemned form, it goes to her Mother and Father-Vivādachandra 23.1-3), If a woman has been married in one of the five forms of marriage mentioned, and she dies without leaving any offspring from the Daughter down to the Son's Son, her property goes to her Husband, not to her Mother and other relations- (Smſtichandrikā, p. 664). If the woman has been married in the Asura, Räkşasa or Paishācha form, her property goes to her Mother and Father-(Parāsharamādhava, p. 373).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 239 Gautama (28.23% [986] 'The Shulka (Nuptial Fee) of the Sister goes to her uterine Brothers, after the Mother;-even before-say some." This refers to cases where the marriage of the deceased had been performed in the Āsura, Rākşasa or Paishācha form.* This refers only to such property as has been given to her at the marriaye: the construction being-Brāhma ..... yaddattam-Āsurădişu yad dattam'- Dāyabhāga, p. 88).--The property that has been obtained by the woman at the time that the marriage is going on goes to her Husband, if she dies without offspring. Prajā' is offspring. It does not mean that 'whatever property has been obtained by a woman married in one of the said forms of inarriage, before as well as after the marriage, - all that goes to her Husband': because the naming of the forms of marriage is meant to indicate the time of the obtaining of the property- (Dayabhāga, p. 89). The property of the woman married in the Brāhma and other forms of marriage, -in the event of her dying childless,-- goes to her Husband; and failing the Husband, to the Husband's nearest relatives;-and the property of the woman married in the Asura and other forms goes to her parents--first to the Mother, then to the Father- (Piramitrodaya, p. 702; also Sniştitattrı II, p. 186). That the property of the woman married in the Brahma, Daira, Arsa and, Prājāpatya forms of marriage shall go to the Husband refers to Brāhmanas, for whom these four alone are the lawful forms of marriage. As for the Gāndharva form, that is also lawful for the Kşattriya; so in the case of this latter, the Wife's property shall go to the Husband-(Tyarahāramayukha, p. 161). (A) Manu and others have described the eight forms of marriage-Brāhma and the rest, -and they have also declared which ones are commended and which not. Among those commended are the Brahma, Daiva, Ārsa and Prājāpatya and Gandharva; and it is to cases of these forms that the first part of the rule is applicable. -(B) Asurā lisu-i.e. in the case of the marriage having been performed in the Asura, Raksasa or Purslācha form.-- Aprajasi'-childless. Vātāpitroḥ'—this is not inconsistent with Yājnavalkya's assertion that the property is .pittgāmi'; because in the latter expression, the term 'pīts' stands for the J1 other and Father- (Vibhagasära 12.1-3). * The Nuptial Fee that had been given for the woman married in the Asura form goes to her uterine Brothers, and failing these, to her Mother-(Aparārka, p. 754). The Nuptial Fee of the woman goes to her uterine Brothers-(Mitäkşarā, p. 849). On this, the Bālambhaťți adds the following notes: "Urdhram måtuh means after the death of the Mother; so says the Kalpataru; the 'Mother' meant here is the Sister of the uterine Brothers' spoken of. Thus the meaning is that On the death of their Sister (mátuḥ of the text) her Nuptial Fee goes to her uterine Brothers, even when she has left regular heirs, in the shape of the Daughter down to her Son's Son'. From this it follows that we reject the explanation that "ürdhvan mātuh is a distinct sentence and what is meant is that the said property goes first to the uterine Brothers, after them (ūrdhvam), to the Mother-and failing both Brothers and Mother, to the Father". The property obtained at marriage by a woman married in the Asura and other inferior forms, goes to her uterine Brothers, on the death of their Mother,-also before the Mother's death (according to some). 'Cha' stands for 'api'; the meaning being that according to some people, even before her Mother's death, the woman's property goes to her uterine Brothers. This is the opinion of other people says Halāyudha-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 520). Even when the Sister has left regular heirs from the Daughter down to the Son's Sons—her Nuptial Fee shall go to her uterine Brothers-(-Vadanapărijāta, Though the Nuptial Fee had been given by the Husband and others, yet it does not go to them; it becomes the property of the uterine Brothers of the deceased woman and failing them, to her Mother' (Smítichandrikā, p. 665), The property goes first of all to the uterine Brothers, failing them, to the Mother,---failing her, to the Father-(Dāyabhāga, p. 95). [So there are two opinions, the order of succession being-according to one (1) Brothers, and (2) Mothers, and according to the other (1) Mother, (2) Brothers.] p. 668).

·240 VIVĀDACHINTĀMANI Baudhāyana- (987] The property of a dead maiden shall be taken by her uterine Brothers themselves; failing them, by her Mother; and failing her, by the Father.' * SECTION (J)-THE PARTITION OF PROPERTY THAT HAD BEEN CONCEALED Says Yājñavalkya (2.126) [988] 'If, after partition, it is discovered that some property had been (surreptitiously) taken by some one among themselves,—that property they shall divide again equally. Such is the law.' he mere fact of the property not having been divided previously imply. ing that it should be divided later on,--the reiteration of such division is only meant to show that the said surreptitious taking is not to be regarded as an act of theft';—such is the opinion of Halāyudha.t * Whatever property, in the shape of the crest jewel and the like, may have been given to the maiden by her maternal Grandfather and others, or may have been inherited by her shall be taken by her uterine Brothers—(Mitākşarā, p. 865). The 'kanyā' meant here is the unmarried girl—(Vivādaratnākara, p. 522). This refers to a case where, prior to the verbal betrothal, some such thing as a head-ornament and the like has been lovingly given to a girl by her maternal Grandfather, Father or other relations, as her very own-Madanapārijāta, p. 469). Any ornaments and such things as may have been given to a maiden by her maternal Grandfather and others shall be taken by her uterine Brothers (Parāsharamadhava, p. 374). Here we find a definite order of succession laid down--(Smrtitattva II, p. 186). This refers to cases where the girl has died before marriage, and to such property as ornaments and the like which may have been given to her at the time of her betrothal, by her maternal Grandfather and others.--Such is the view of the Tradi. tionalists-i Vyavahāramayukha, p. 162). The first heir to the maiden's property is her Brother,--then her Mother,- then her Father.--This refers to cases where the maiden had been orally betrothed; and it does not apply to the property that she may have received from the Bridegroom; which latter reverts to the Bridegroom himself-(Dāyanirnaya 10.2–4). † This rule applies to those cases where the coparceners are entitled to unequal shares (as laid down in Yājñavalkya 2.125). The word 'Sthitih' implies that there should be no doubt regarding the propriety of equal division-(Vishvarūpa). This lays down what is to be done in a case where a Brother has wrongfully taken away something that should have been divided; and it is subsequently discovered. If a partible property has been taken away by one of the Brothers, and it is found out after the partition of other property has been finished, -that property shall be divided among all the Brothers in equal shares, not in unequal shares; there being no Preferential Share in the case. --The assertion of this rule being sufficient justification for the text, it does not go to prove that the man who took away the property incurred no sin.-A possible view that the property dis. covered is to be divided equally among all except the one who had taken and concealed it-(A parārka). In & case where joint property had been surreptitiously taken away by one of the co-sharers themselves, which is found out, not at the time of partition, but later on, this property they shall divide equally among themselves. --Vibhajēran', they shall divide this implies that it shall not be taken only by that man who has discovered it.-This being the fruitful signification of the text, it cannot be taken to imply that he who had taken the property surreptitiously incurred no sin. Specially because by law, as also by equity, the taking away of what is common property does constitute an offence (Mitākṣarā).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 241 Katyāyana- [991] 'If anything had been taken away by any one among themselves, and if anything had not been divided (or wrongly divided).-on being found out, it shall be divided in equal shares,--says Bhrgu.-But among undivided relatives, no one shall be made to make good what he has enjoyed.' 'In equal shares'-i.e. in accordance with the shares assigned in the previous division.-Fhat he has enjoyed'-i.e. the man who has enjoyed (used up) the common property that had been hidden is not to be compelled to make good.* SECTION (K) -PARTITION AMONG SONS OF DIVERSE CASTES Says Manu (9.152) [992)-The Brāhmana (Son) shall take four parts; the Son of the Kşattriya Mother, three parts; the Son of the Vaishya Jother, two parts; and the Son of the Shūdra Mother, one part.' In the Bhārata we find the following [993] '(A) O Yudhisthira, the property of the Kşattriya shall be divided into eight parts; out of the Father's property, the Son of his Kşattriya Wife shall take four parts; he shall also take the implements of battle; the $ What is meant is that in a case where, after the partition has taken place, if some part of the joint property remains unnoticed with any one of the co-sharers, it does not become his sole property; it has got to be divided.-'Equal'-.e, in the same proportion as the previous partition- (Piramitrodaya-ſikā on Yājñavalkya). Vivādaratnākara (p. 526) has the same note as Vivādachintamani. If, after the partition, it is discovered that some property had been taken away by one of the co-sharers,--that property shall be divided in equal shares, -- .e. not according to the scheme whereby the eldest gets a Preferential Share in the shape of the twentieth part of the property-(Madanapārijāta, p. 688). 'They'—the divided coparceners. The meaning is that, if among persons living together, some one has taken away some property, and it is discovered after partition, it has to be divided equally--(Smrtichandrikā, p. 714). If some one deceived the others at the time of partition, and the deceit is discovered afterwards, the entire property should be divided equally: the Plural Number in 'Vibhājēran' (shall divide) indicates that the property is not to be taken only by the man who has discovered it-(Parāsharamādhava, p. 382). Vibhājēran' implies—(a) that the property is not to go to that man only who has discovered it, and (6) that the man who had taken it is not to receive & smaller share-(Viramitrodaya, p. 706). This lays down the division of what had been surreptitiously kept back by the Brothers, etc.-Anyony@bhrtau'-taken by the eldest, or the youngest, or others (Vyavahāramayūkha, p. 131). In fact, the division of the said property being necessary by reason of its not having been divided, the purpose served by the reiteration in the text is to indicate that the party who had taken the property is not to be regarded as a 'thief'. Such is the opinion of Halayudha.--In our opinion however, the text serves the purpose of actually laying down the partition, --in view of the fact that it is well known that in such cases the property comes to be looked upon as belonging exclusively to the person in whose possession it has been found and it may not be regarded as joint property; hence it becomes necessary to lay down that the property is to be divided-(Vibhāgasāra 12.1-6). * For notes see under Text No. 910, where this same text has been quoted and commented upon. 16 ·242 VIVĀDACHINTÄMAŅI Son of the Vaishya Wife shall take three parts; and the eighth part shall go to the Son of the Shüdra Wife.* * (A) On the strength of the declaration contained in this text, some people have rejected the scheme of division laid down in Manu 9.151 [by which, the Brāhmana takes three, the Kşattriya two, the Vaishya a part and half, and the Shüdra one part]. But that text refers to cases where there are two or more Sons of each caste who are entitled to equal shares; whereas the present text refers to cases where the number of Sons of the various castes is not the same.-Though the shares of the Kşattriya and other Sons have been set forth here in an unqualified form, yet, in another Smſti-text, we read that the land acquired from gifts shall not be given to the Son of the Ksattriya Wife'; while in another text we read that the son born to a Brāhmana from a Shūdra Wife is not entitled to a share in the landed property ',-which precludes the Shūdra from all kinds of land.-All this restriction, however, should be understood to apply to cases where there are other forms of property also; otherwise, the Sons in question would be left without any means of subsistence. But what we hold is that provision for subsistence has no. where been precluded. The differ ence between the two cases is that, if the said Sons are entitled to regular shares', they would be entitled to sell or give away the property inherited, while of what they get as mere 'subsistence they can take only the usufruct. Provision for the subsistence of such Sons has to be made at the time of the partition of the Father's property; for if no provision were made at that time by definitely setting aside some landed property for that purpose, it is just possible that the other sons who have regularly inherited the landed property may squander it away, which would leave the other Sons entirely unprovided for (Medhätithe). This refers to cases where there are several Sons from all the Wives. In this case, there is no Preferential Share.-When each of the four Wives has several Sons -and in varying numbers,-each Son of the Kşattriya Wife shall receive what is one-fourth less than the share of the Son of the Brāhmana Wife; each of the Sons of the Vaishya Wife shall have one-half, and the Son of the Shüdra Wife one-quarter of the share of the Son of the Brāhmana Wife. In a case where only the Brāhmana and Kşattriya Wives have Sons, the property shall be divided into seven parts,-four of these shall go to the Son of the Brāhmana Wife and three to that of the Ksattriya Wife. In a case where there are Sons born only of the three Brāhmana, Kşattriya and Vaishya Wives, the property shall be divided into nine parts. Where there are Sons of the Brāhmana, Vaishya and Shudra Wives only, it shall be divided into seven parts; where there are Sons of the Brāhmana and Shūdra Wives only, it shall be divided into five parts; and so on--(Sarvajñanārāyana). The entire property--without extracting any Preferential Share-shall be divided into ten parts—(Kullūka). This implies that the alternative laid down in the present text is the primary while that declared in Manu 9.151 is the secondary one -(Nandana). The meaning is that when a division has been made among the four Sons in the proportion of 3, 2, 1 (as laid down in Manu 9.151),--if any of these four Brothers (belonging to the four different castes happen to have two or three or more Brothers of the same caste as himself, he shall share his own share equally with these (Rāghavānanda). The division herein set forth proceeds on the basis of no Preferential Share having been extracted.-No significance attaches to the Singular Number in the word viprah' ('Brāhmana?)-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 528). Of the two alternative schemes (laid down in 9.151 and 9.153), the latter (i.e. the present text) is in agreement with Yājñavalkya. The discrepancy between the two schemes is to be explained as being due to the difference in the qualifications of the Sons of the Kșattriya and other Wives. If, for instance, the Son born of the Kşattriya Wife of a Brāhmana happen to be senior in age and also possessed of superior qualifications, his share shall be equal to that of the Son of the Brāhmana Wife, and so on-(Vāramitrodaya, p. 594). The text lays down the method of partition among the Sons born to a Brāhmana from his four Wives belonging to the four castes--(Dāyanirnaya 20.1-7). (B and c) Drstānta' here stands for the Veda; the meaning therefore is that even though a Shudra Wife has not been ordained for the Vaishya or the Ksattriya, yet, if through lust, he does marry a Shūdra Wife, then the son born of her shall receive a share.-Yuddhaupachärikam', 'Implements of battle', such as swords and the like-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 529). Ібв one, ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 243 [994] '(B) O descendant of the Kurus, for the l'aishya, there can be only one Wife; he may have a Shüdra Wife; but no instance of any such has been recorded (or according to Ratnākara, no such is permitted by the Deda). The property of the l'aishya shall be divided into five parts, (C) O chief of the Bharatas; from the Father's property, the Son of his Vaishya Wife shall take four parts, and the fifth part shall go to the Son of the Shüdra Wife.' All this scheme applies to cases where the Brāk mana has four Wives, the Kşattriya has three, and the Vaishy has two.—In cases where there have not been so many Wires, the property need not be divided into ten, eight or five parts.-'Implements of Battle--i.e. the Horse, the Sword and so forth. Says l'işnu- (995) *If a Brāhmana has Sons of all castes except the one born of the Shūdra Wife, they shall divide the property into nine parts. So also in the case of the Kşattriya and others.' Brhaspati (25.30) [996] 'Land obtained as a Religious Gift shall not be given to the Son of ille Kşattriya or other Wives. Even if the Father give it, the Son of the Brāhmana Wife shall take it away on the death of the Father.' * Vyddha-Manu- [997] 'The land acquired by Brahmanical methods shall be taken by the Sons born of the Brāhmann Wife; the House and the ancestral land shall be taken by all the Sons of the twice-born castes.' 'Brahmadāyāgata'--'acquired by Brahmanical methods',-i.e. acquired through officiating at Sacrifices, Teaching and Receiving Gifts.—Twice-born castes-i.e. belonging to the three higher castes. The Brāhmana may have Wives of all the four castes; when he has got four Sons from these four Wives, then the rule is that their shares are to be in the proportion of 4, 3, 2, 1, in the order of the castes.- Similarly the Ksattriya may have three Wives and so forth. Thus the property shall be divided into ten parts in the case of the Brāhmana, eight parts in that of the Ksattriya, and five parts in that of the Vaishya.-'Puddhaupachārikam' stands for the Sword and other weapons (Vibhāgasāra 12.2.1). * The implication is that lands acquired by other means are to be given to the Sons mentioned above ; but never to the Son of the Shudra Wife (Aparārka, p. 732). Though the principle of division among the Sons of different castes has been laid down by Manu as 4, 3, 2, 1,-yet that has to be taken as referring to property other than lands obtained as Religious Gift.—The implication of this text is that land obtained by Purchase and such other means is to be given to the Ksattriya and other Sons also; but the Son of the Shüdra Wife has been specially precluded from inheriting landed property by Bșhaspati in another text. There would be no need for this special preclusion of the Shüdra Son if the Ksattriya and Paishya Sons were not entitled to inherit landed property other than that obtained as religious gift-(Mitaksarā, pp. 669-670). The special mention of "Religious Gift' implies that land acquired by other means is to be given (Madanapārijāta, p. 658). Lands acquired by Purchase and other means are to be given to the Kşattriya and other Sons, as is clearly implied by the mention of Religious Gift'; and also by the special exclusion of the Shüdra from inheriting landed property--(Parāsharamādhava, p. 343; also Vīramitrodaya, p. 595). † Brahmadāyāgatām'acquired by Brahmanical methods'; i.e. through Religious Gifts or through officiating at Sacrifices, and such other acts.--"Sons of the twice-born castes ', -i.e. those belonging to the three higher castes-(Vivadaratnākara, p. 534).

·244 VIVĂDACHINTAMANI Shankha [998] "The Son of the Shūdra Wife shall not be a sharer in the property; whatever his Father gives to him, that alone shall be his share. In addition, one should give to him a cow and a bull, black metal and black grains, with the exception of sesamum.' Vanu (9.154-155)- [999) (A) 'Whether a man has a Son or no Son [of the higher castes], he shall not, according to Law, allot more than the tenth part to the Son of his Shüdra Wife. * The land that the Father had obtained as a Religious Gift shall go entirely to the Son of the Brāhmaṇa Wife, not to those of the Ksattriya and other Wives. The House as also the ancestral field shall go to only those Sons who belong to the three higher castes, not to the Shüdra Son.--'Brahma' is Veda; hence 'Brahmadāya' means Religious Gift; as such gift has been sanctioned for a Brāhmana only as one who has read the Veda and understood its contents(Dayabhāga, pp. 138-139). * Brahmadāyāgatām'-obtained by officiating at Sacrifices, Teaching and so forth. Twice-born castes '-the Brāhmana, the Ksattriya and the Vaishya (Vibhāgasāra 12.2-6). The land that has been acquired by the Father by virtue of his Vedic Scholarship shall go to the Son born of his Brāhmana Wife; the ancestral House and ancestral landed property belonging to the Sons of the first three castos. 'Ancestral '-acquired by the Grandfather and other ancestors(Dāyanirnaya 20.2.1). *(A) 'Has a Son-has any Son; or the 'Son' meant may be that born of the Brāhmana Wife, and not that of any of the three higher castes. So that if there is no Son bom of the Brāhmana Wife, even if there are Sons of Ksattriya and Vaishya Wives,-the Son of the Shūdra Wife shall receive the eighth part, while if there is a Son of only the Vaishya Wife, the Son of the Shūdra Wife shall receive the third part.- Others however explain the term 'no Son' to mean the absence of any Son of any Wife of any of the twice-born castes; and according to this view, the residue of the property left over after the tenth part has been made over to the Shüdra Son shall go to the Sapindas.--The most unobjectionable principle of division, however, would be as follows: If the property is a large one, and there is no son of any higher caste, the Shūdra Son shall receive only the tenth part;-if, however, the property is just enough for the maintenance of a limited number of persons only, then the whole shall go to the Shūdra Son. In the case of the Kşattriya and others, another Smrti text has laid down the rule that the Son of the Ksattriya shali receive 3, 2 and 1 shares' (Yājñavalkya 2.125); which means that the Ksattriya's Son from the Ksatriya Wife shall get three parts, his Son of the Vaishya Wife two parts and his Son of the Shüdra Wife, one part.-Others, again, explain the present text of Monu as follows:-When the Brāhmana is going to give to his Shūdra Son any property at all, he shall collect the entire property and give to him the tenth part of it.-oven though he be free to do what he likes.--According to this view, it would be much more reasonable to construe the text as the man having a Son shali give, etc. etc.'-'dadyāt'-'shall give '-being construed with 'satputrah''having a son', Otherwise, the construction would have to be the person whose Father has a Son, or no Son, shall give, etc. etc.'; -which shall be a very far_fetched one; as in this case, the term 'having a Son' shall stand for the dead Father, while the Nominative of the verb 'shall give' would be the living Son, or other Sapinda relations.Thus then, in a case where there are only Brāhmaṇa and Shudra Sons,- and no Kşattriya or Vaishya Sons,--the Shüdra Son is entitled to, not to the tenth part, but to something less, never more.-When the Brāhmana Son takes the entire property, he cannot be called either a 'sharer' or 'a receiver of four shares'; hence what has been said by Manu in 9.153 regarding the Brāhmaṇa taking from shares' would apply to a case where there are four Brothers (belonging to the four castes). The shüdra Son also receives the tenth part only when there are four Brothers. These shares become correspondingly increased according as there have been two or three Brothers only-(Medhatithi). "Satputrah-Having Sons of superior Wives;-'aputraḥ -having no Sons of any other caste;- nädhikam'; the meaning is that, when there are no Sons of any > ·INHERITANCE- PARTITION 245 [1000] (B) Of the Brāhmana, the Kşattriya and the Vaishya,--the Son born of a Shüdra Wife is not a sharer in the property; his property shall consist of whatever his Father may give to lim.'* 3 other castes, the tenth part of the property shall be given to the Shüdra-born Son, and the rest of it shall be taken by the widows and others--(Sartajñanārāyana). Whether a Brāhmana has Sons from Wires of all the twice-born castes, or he has no such Sons,-in either case, his immediate Heir shall not give more than the tenth part of his property to his Son from the Shüdra Wife,'according to Law'- Thus, in view of this prohibition in regard to the Son from the Shūdra Wife, if the Brāhmaṇa has no Son from his Brāhmaṇa Wife, his two Sons, born from his Ksattriyn and Vaishya Wives, shall take the rest of the property-(Kullūka). Even when partition takes place at the wish of the Father, only the tenth part of the property shall be given to the Son born from his Shūdra Wife.- Satputrahhe who has Sons born from Wives of all the four castes:-*aputraḥ he who has no sons born from those Wives. The rule is that no mure than the tenth part shall be given-(Rāgharānanda). • Batputraḥ-Having Sons. No share over and above the tenth ſiart shall be given to the Son of the Shüdra Wife-(Nandanul. 'Satputrah'-Having a Brāhmana Son-Ramachandra). 'No more-than the tenth part- (4 parārka, p. 735). The meaning is that the Son of the Shūdra Wife, even though a 'body-bom' Son, does not receive a full share, even when there are no other Sons.- Satputraḥ having twice-born Sons;- Aputrah -not having twice-born Sons. On the death of such a man, his Kņētraja and other Sons, or other Sapindas, shall 210t give more than the tenth part of his property to his Son born of the Shūdra Wife. This implies that in a case where a Brāhmana has no Son of his own (aste, his Sons born of Kşattriya and Vaishya Wives shall take his entire property--Vitālsarā, p. 716). Saputrak' (i.e. for 'sat putraḥ)-one who has twice-bom Suns; aputruħ'-one who has no twice-born Sons.-Sars Lakşmīdhara—'If the Father, being pleased with his Son born of the Shüdra Wife, gives him anything, he should give him only the tenth part of his property:- According to Halāyudha and Pārijāta, this text refers to such Sons as are born of a married Shüdra Wife and are absolutely devoid of good qualities-(Tiradaratnākara, p. 536). This refers to a Son who is not devoted to the Father's service-(Paräsharu. madhara, p. 344). This precludes the giving of more than the tenth part to the Son of the Shūdra Wife, even when there are no twice-bom Sons--(Dayabhāga, p. 141). Satputraḥ-having Sons born of the Wife of the same caste as himself;- *aputrah-having no Sons born of the Wife of the same caste as himself. On the death of such a Brāhmaṇa, his Ksattriya and other Sons, or any one else who may inherit his property, shall not give to his Son born of the Shüdra Wife anything more than the ‘tenth part' of his property. From this same text it follows that, if the Brāhmana has no Brāhmana Sons, his Sons born of the Ksattriya and Vaishya Wives shall take all the property of their Brāhmaṇa Father. The texts of Yājñavalkya and others that have spoken of the 'shares of the Sons of all four castes receiving shares in the proportion of 4, 3, 2, 1, should be taken as referring to such Sons of the Shūdra Wife as are possessed of exceptionally good qualities Vīramitrodaya, p. 622). 'Satputraḥ -Having Sons of the three higher castes-(l'ibhāgasāra 12.9-8). *(B)-The Son of the Shūdra Wife of a twice-born person is not an 'Inheritor of Property'.-'Is that so absolutely ? -No! whatever his Father may give to himmi.e. the tenth part, which the Father may have allotted to him, that shall be his property, and he obtains nothing more out of his paternal property.Some people hold that this text refers to the Son born of an unmarried Shüdra woman; third argument being that there is nothing in the text to indicate the Mother being a married Wife; so that what the text means is that for the Son born of a Shudra woman, the provision that the Father may make for his maintenance, or any share that he might allot to him during his life-time,-that shall be his property, and his Brothers need not give him anything. In connection with this, Gautama (28.39) says 'As regards the Sons of unmarried women, they shall, if they are obedient, receive enough for subsistence, in the manner of Pupils'. According to these men, however, it would follow that the Sons born of unmarried Kşattriya and Vaishya women are entitled to regular inheritance, and it is not known to what shares these would be entitled-Medhätithi).

·246 VIVÅDACHINTĀMANI (A) Has a Son'-i.e. has a Son of one of the three higher castes; or 10 Son'-i.e. has no son of the same kind.--(B) 'Is not a sharer in the property', -i.e. not entitled to any property other than the tenth part of the Father's property,--says the Kalpataru.--According to the Pārijāta however, The Son of the Shūdra Wife may get even more than the tenth part', if his Father has given it to him-Not an inheritor of property'-beyond the tenth part. 'His property';-i.e. that his Father may have given to him, that alone he shall get, beyond the tenth part-(Sarrajñanārāyana). The Son born to a Brāhmana or Kşattriya or Vaishya—from a Shūdra Wife -does not inherit any property; whaterer his Father gives him, that alone shall be his property.--Here tre have the negation of the share assigned to the Shüdra Son in Manu 9.134; this therefore should be treated as a case of option; to be determined by considerations of the qualities of the Sons concerned; if they are possessed of superior qualities, they get the share as declared under Manu 9.154; if they have no good qualities, they get no share, as declared in the present text.- Or, the denial of the tenth part' in the present text may be taken as referring to the Son of an Unmarried Shüdra woman --(Kullūka). In a case where the division is being made by the Sons, the Son of the Shüdra Wife, if devoid of good qualities, shall not receive any inheritance. That is, the 'tenth part' shall not be given to him--(Nandana). Does not inherit'-i.e. if he is devoid of good qualities(Rāmachandra). This text precludes the Son of the Shūdra Wife from Inheritance, in cases where he has already got something from his Father, as a loving gift. If total exclusion were meant, then the texts ordaining shares for such a Son would become meaningless -(Aparārka, 141. 732 and 735). In a case where there are two Sons-one born of a Shüdra Wife and another born of a non-Shüdra Wife,—the Son of the former, if unmarried, is not entitled to inheritance and the whole property goes to the non-Shūdra Son-(Smrtichandrikā, p. 614). This refers to cases where the Son of the Shūdra Wife has already received some property through his Father's favour; in cases where no such property has been given, the allotting of one share to him would not be repugnant to the present text.-{It is not right to take the present text as referring to the Son of an unmarried Shūdra woman-says the Bālambhatti ]—(Mitākṣarā, pp. 670-671). In a case where the Father, during his life-time has already given something to the Son born of his Shūdra Wife, his Brothers need not give any share to him at the time of partition; in cases where the Father has not given him anything, he does receive a share-(Madanapārijāta, pp. 658-659). According to Lakşmīdhara,—in a case where the Father, being pleased with the Son of his Shūdra Wife, wishes to give him some property, he should not give him anything more than the tenth part of his property; such is the meaning of Manu 9.154. According to this view, the assertion that 'the Son of the Shüdra Wife shall not inherit property' would mean that he is not entitled to anything that has not been given to him by his Father. According to Halāyudha and the Pārijāta, on the other hand, the former text (9.154) refers to such Son of the married Shūdra Wife as is devoid of good qualities, and the present text (155) refers to such Son of the unmarried Shūdra woman as is devoid of qualities, and precludes him from all share in the property.-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 536). There is no inconsistency between these two texts of Manu; as the present text refers to cases where the son in question has had some property given to him by his Father through his love for him-(Parăsharamadhava, p. 343). What is precluded here is the son inheriting the Father's property; and this should be taken as referring to cases where the Son has, through his Father's favour, already received the tenth part'-(Dayabhāga, p. 141). This refers to cases where the Son has already got some property given to him by the Father,--so say the Southerners. It refers to such Son of the unmarried Shüdra woman as is devoid of good qualities.-so say the Easterners. This however cannot be right; as it is not proper to introduce only conditions such as the presence or absence of good qualities.--apart from what is directly mentioned in the text; and also because the question of the share of the Son of the unmarried Shudra woman is going to be dealt with under the treatment of Slaves'.--Hence, the former view is the right one-(Vīramitrodaya, p. 596). This means that the Son of an unmarried Shudra woman does not receive any share, even in the moveable property--(Vyavahāramayūkha, p. 103).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 247 what is meant is that the Son of the duly married Shudra IVife also, who is entirely devoid of all good qualities, is not entitled to any share in the Father's property at all. Bphaspati (25.31) [1001] 'If a childless person has a Son born to him of a Shudra woman, and he is obedient and endowed with good qualities, he shall receive a maintenance; the Sapindas shall take the rest of the property.' * Childless'—i.e. the man who has no Son of the three higher castes.- "Sapindas -those that are nearmost; in the absence of those, even remoter ones. * This rule applies to the Son of an unmarried Shūdra woman; as the context in which it occurs related to unmarried woman. Manu (9.173) [1002]—'If a Son is born to a Shūdra, from a slave-girl, or from the slave-girl of a slave,-he shall, when permitted, receive a share. Such is the settled Law.' † p. 536). p. 103). * The simple meaning is that the property of the childless person goes to his Sapindas (aparārka, p. 735). This refers to the Son of a woman not married to the man-(Fivādaratnākara, What is meant is that the Son shall be given some land for cultivation which should suffice for his subsistence (Dāyabhāga, p. 141). This is what is done after the death of the Father--(Vyavahāramayūkha, If a Brāhmaṇa has no Sons of the three higher castes, his property goes to his Sapindas.--This refers to cases where the man has a Shūdra Son born of a woman not married to him. In case he has & Shüdra Son born of a married Shudra Wife, he would be entitled to a share in the property (Vibhāgasāra 12.2-11). † In the case of Shūdras, the child born from an unmarried woman, or from an 'unauthorised woman', is a Son'.-From the present text, it is clear that if a slave is to beget a child upon a slave-girl belonging to another slave, that child would belong to the former.-'When permitted by his Father-shall receive a share',- equal to that of the 'Legitimate Son, when the partition is made during the Father's life-time, or when the Father has declared to his Sons that this child shall receive a share equal to yours'.—If however the Father does not permit it, what should be done has been declared in another Smrti-text'the Son born to a Shūra from a female slave shall receive a share according to the Father's wish; but on the Father's death, his Brothers shall assign to him half-a-share; if he has no Brothers, he shall take the entire property except when there are his Father's Daughter's Sons (Yājňavalkya 2.133-134, vide 1001 below). If the latter are there, they shall be treated as legitimate Sons of their maternal grandfather.-In the case of the Brāhmaṇa and other castes, Sons born of slave-girls are entitled to mere subsistence-(Medhātithi). If a Son is born to a Son from an unmarried slave-girl.-or from a slave-girl belonging to his slave,--such & Son shall receive a share, if permitted by his Father; if not permitted, he shall receive bare maintenance. This implies that the Shüdra may have a 'Son' born to him from a slave-girl not married to him, but belonging to him somehow,—but not from a woman married to some one else-(Sarvajñanārāyana). If a Son is born to a Shūdra from a slave-girl of any kind, or from a slave-girl related to a slave,—this Son, if permitted by the Father, shall receive & share equal to that of his Sons from his married Wives-Kullūka). The Son bom to a Shüdra from a slave-girl, or from the Wife of a slave of his, that Son, when permitted by the Father, during his life-time, shall receive a share equal to that of his Sons by his married Wives (Rāghavananda). The addition of the qualification when permitted 'implies that if he is not so permitted, he shall not receive it-(Nandana). 'Däsyām'-i.e. from & Shüdra wife, married to him.- Dāsadasyām'-the slave-girl belonging to his slave-(Rāmachandra).

·248 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Yājñaralkya (2.133) [1003) "The Son born to a Shůdra from a slave-girl shall receive a share, if the Father so wishes it. On the death of the Father, his Brothers should give him half-a-share.' That is, if the Shūdra has a Son born to him from an unmarried Shūdra woman, he obtains a share if the Father so wishes it. If there has been no such wish, the said Son is entitled to a share which shall be half of that of his step-brother-i.e. the Son born to the said Father from his married Wife. He goes on- [1004] 'If he has no Brothers, he shall take the entire property, except when there are no Daughter's Sons-(Yājñavalkya 2.131). That is, the Son of the unmarried woman shall take the entire property, only if the deceased has left no Son or Daughter's Son from his married Wife.* 'Dasyām'--from a slave-girl belonging to any of the categories enumerated by Vanu.-'Dāsadāsyām',-from a slave belonging—not married_to a slave of his.-According to the Kalpataru, this means the slave-girl belonging to his servant -(Vivādaratnākara, p. 537). In the case of the Shudra, his Son born from & slave-girl or other woman, not married to him, shall, if permitted by the Father, receive a share equal to that of his other Sons-(Dāyabhāga, p. 143). * Then permitted by the Father-(Vibhāgasāra 13.1.1). * When a man has no Brothers, and the dead Father has left no Daughters or Daughter's Sons, he would be entitled to take the whole property.--The mention of the 'Daughter's Son'as providing an exception implies that, of twice-born persons Daughter's Sons inherit the property if there are no Sons-(Vishvarūpa). When one has no Brother, born of a married Wife of his father, and there are no Daughter's Sons-the said man shall inherit the entire paternal property; in case there are Daughter's Sons, he shall receive only half-(Aparārka). If there are no Sons born from a married Wife, then the Son bom of the slave. girl shall inherit the entire property; but only if there are no Daughters born from his married Wives, or Sons of such Daughters. In case these latter are there, the said Son shall receive only half of the property.The special mention of the 'Shūdra' in this connection implies that in the case of twice-born persons, Sons bom of slave-girls are not entitled to either the whole or half of the property, even if the Father wishes it; it is his Daughters who receive it; as for the Son in question, he receives only his maintenance (Mitāksarā). The slave-girl's Son-if he has no Brother born of his Father's married Wife,- and if there are no Daughters born of his Father's married Wife,or Sons of such Daughters, shall inherit the entire property--(Viramitrodaya-Tīkā on Yājñavalkya). If there is no son born from a married Wife,nor Sons of Daughters born from a married Wife, the Son born from a slave-girl shall receive the entire property of the Father-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 538). Abhrātſkaņ'having no Brother born from the married Wife of his Father.- He shall receive the Father's entire property if there are no Daughters born from the Father's married Wife, -or Sons of such Daughters. If these are there, the said Son shall receive only half of the property. The special mention of the Shūdra implies that in the case of twice-bom persons, the son born from a slave-girl cannot, in any case, receive any share in the Father's property; food and clothing would be all that he would receive-(Madanapārijāta, p. 659). One who has no Brother born from his Father's married Wife shall receive the entire property, if there are no Daughter's Sons. In case there is a Daughter's Son, the property shall be divided equally-(Dāyabhāga, p. 143). A Son born to a Shüdra from an unmarried woman receives a share if the Father so wishes it; on the death of the Father, he receives a share which is half of what is received by the Sons of the married Wife of the deceased.--Duhitrņām sutādste-i.e. if there is no Daughter or Daughter's Son-(Vibhāgasāra 13.1-2). The Father makes the share of the Shūdra Son equal to that of the Son of the slave-girl. 'Kāmataḥ'-i.e.--according to the Father's wish.-'Duhitrņām, etc. '-If the Daughter's Son is there, then the said Son is to have the same share as that of the Daughter's Son-(Dāyanirnaya 16.2-3).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 249 Gautama (28.45) (1005) 'Sons born from Wives married in the reverse order shall be treated like the Son from a Shüdra roman.' That is, if a Son is born to a Shūdra or others from a woman of the Vaishya or other higher castes, they should be treated like the Son of a Shüdra woman,-i.e. he is to receive something.-in the shape of the plough-share and such things,--to serve as the means of his subsistence. * SECTION (L)-PARTITION AMONG THE SONS OF DIVIDED COPARCENERS *The Son of divided coparceners' is of two kinds :-(a) one who was in the Mother's womb at the time of partition, and (b) one conceived after partition.-Tith reference to the former, says Yājñaralkya (2.123) [1006] (A) If after partition, a Son is born of a Wife of the Son's own caste that Son shall be entitled to a share;-(B) Or, he shall receive a share out of whatever may be found with the Brothers.--taking into account the subsequent income and expenditure.' (A) Vibhagabhāk-i.e. he becomes entitled to a share in the property. (B) 'Dyshyādvā, etc., etc.'--.e. out of that property alone which may be found or out of both what is found and what is not found of the property that had been already received by the Brothers.—'Income-what may have accrued subsequently;- 'expenditure'—what may have been spent; out of the property that is found, the subsequent accretions should be deducted; and the new-born Son is to get his share out of what remains of the Father's property after the expenses incurred since partition, and keeping out of it, That may have accrued to it, since the last partition. The two options herein set forth (A and B) relate to two distinct cases of the Son concerned possessing or not possessing superior qualifications ;--so says Halāyudha.“ * The meaning is that the Sons born of the other castes are to be treated like the Son born from a Shüdra Wife; i.e. they are to receive mere subsistence; provided they are obedient, like pupils—(Vivādaratnākara, p. 537). The Son born to the Shüdra or other castes, from Wives of the Vaishya or other higher castes, receives something in the shape of the plough and such other implements necessary for earning a livelihood; just like the Son born (to the higher castes) from a Shüdra woman (Vibhāgasāra 13.1-4). † (A) In a case where the Sons have divided the property during the Father's life-time, before the Mother has passed the child-bearing age, and a Son is born after the division,-this Son also is entitled to the property; and this could be 80 only if the ownership of the new-born Son were already in-born in him; otherwise, if 'ownership' were something created by Partition, then the new-born Son could not have any right to the property, as he was not born at the time of the Partition. -Though it is not expressly stated to what share he would be entitled, it is to be understood that it is the Father's share to which he is entitled; as according to Gautama, 'the Son born after partition receives the Father's share'.-(B) In case the Father has no property of his own (having reserved no part of the property for himself when he divided it among his Sons), the Son born after partition shall receive his share out of such property as may be 'visible', i.e. found; but with this difference that what may have been earned by those Brothers should be excluded, and account be taken also of what may have been spent out of it;-after this has been done, what remains shall be divided equally among all the Brothers, including the newborn one (Vishvarūpa). After the property has been partitioned among the Sons,—if a Son be born to the Father of a Wife belonging to the same caste as himself—this Son receives the "Father's share'. In case there is no "Father's share', then a share for the said Son shall be found, out of the produce of such lands and other property as may be ·250 TIVĂDACHINTĀMAŅI found after the partition had been made,--after due account has been taken of income and expenditure -4parārka). (A) This text lays down the manner in which share may be allotted to the Son horn after partition. After the Sons have become separated from the Father, if a Son is bom to the latter from a Wife belonging to the same caste as himself, this Son shall receive a share'. In the compound 'vibhāgabhāk', the term 'vibhāga! stands for what is divided, i.e. the operty; and what the Son in question 'receives' (*bhāk) is the 'vibhāga', Property, of the parents.-But the Mother's share he shall receive only if there is no Daughter [no Daughter or Daughter's Son, according to the Subodhinī; no Daughter of the same caste as the Father, according to Bālambhatī]. -If the Son in question is born of a Wife belonging to a caste different from the Father's, he receives only his own share out of the Father's share, but the Mother's share he receives entire-but only if the Mother has left no Daughter or Daughter's Sons. This is what has been declared by Manu (9.216). Whatever has been acquired by the Father after the Sons have become separated shall go in its entirety to the Son born after the separation, as laid down in the Text'Putraiḥ saha vibhaktēna, etc.' (Brhaspati 25.19).--In case the separated Sons have become re-united with the Father, then after the Father's death, the Father's property shall be shared with those by the Son born after the former partition; as declared by Manu in 9.216- (B) The second line lays down the rule regarding the case where a Son is born after the existing Sons have divided the property among themselves on the Father's death. The word 'tadvibhāgaḥ' means the 'vibhāga', share, of the Son born after partition among the Brothers.--'From where would this share come ?'.-Answer- Drshyāt', 'from out of what is found'; i.e. out of the property inherited by the Brothers, such of this property as may be computed after taking into account the income and expenditure. 'Income stands for the daily, monthly or yearly produce; and 'expenditure for the repaying of the Father's debts;-what remains of the property after these two items have been taken into account,-out of that, his share is to be given to the Son in question. That is to say, the Brothers shall add to their individual shares all the income that may have accrued to each of them since partition, then they shall pay all the debts left by the Father,—then each of them shall contribute a part of his share and thereby make up a share for the Brother born after the partition, which should be equal to their own individual share. This same rule applies to the case where one of the Brothers, who had no children at the time of the partition, has a Son born to him (after his death-adds the Bulambhattī) from his Wife in whom signs of pregnancy were not perceptible before his death. In cases where such signs have been perceptible, the partition should be postponed till delivery takes place; as has been declared by Dashiştha (17.41) (Hitākṣarā). On this, the Bālambhaſtī has the following notes—Some digest-writers have explained the second sentence (B) as setting forth an optional alternative to what has been said in the preceding sentence (A); others again have construed the two sentences together.--Neither of these explanations is right. That is why the Mrtākṣarā has taken the two sentences entirely separately;--the first sentence pertaining to cases where the partition has been done during the Father's life-time, and the new Son has been born after that partition; while the second sentence pertains to cases where the partition has been after the Father's death, and the Son has been born after that partition.'Income stands for the profits that each Brother may have made after the partition, over his own share of the property, by means of Agriculture and other methods; and expenditure stands for the payment of such debts as the Father had incurred in the maintaining of the family.-A further explanation has been added (by the Mitākṣarā) with a view to preclude the meaning that the income and the 'expenditure' are to be excluded from the property to be shared by the new-born Brother. Each Brother shall give out of his share what may be proportionate to his share at the time. What is meant is as follows: Though the Father's property had been partitioned, yet (by reason of the birth of the new Brother), it should be treated as not-partitioned; in view of the fact that that the child in the womb, by virtue of being the Father's child, was as much entitled to a share in his property as the other Sons; hence, if it was in the Mother's womb at the time of the Father's death and was born subsequently, it is entitled to share his property and in the profits accrued to that property. If the child is a male one, its share shall be equal to that of each of the other Sons; and if it is female, it shall receive a quarter of such share-(Balambhatļī). This text lays down the rule regarding the share of the Son born after partition. -(A) After the Šons have been divided, if a Son is born to one, from a Wife belonging to the same caste as himself, he receives a share, i.e. proper share-out of the ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 251 entire property that has been already divided among the Brothers --after deducting from it the accretions to it (since partition) and the expenses incurred out of it. (B) In case the Son born after partition is entirely devoid of good qualities, then he shall receive a share only out of what may be 'visible', in the shape of cows, buffaloes and the like; after taking into account the accretions and the losses. It might be argued that, in accordance with Vārada's text, there should be no partition while there is any likelihood of a Son being born; how then could there be any Son born after partition ?-But what is asserted by Vārada is often set aside by the strong desire of the Father to divide the property among his Sons.-If this were not so, then the present text of Yājñavalkya would have no sense at all.-In fact, the present text refers to cases where the child has been already in the womb at the time of partition. In regard to the Son corceired after partition, we have the rules laid down by Manu 9.216 and others—(Piramnitrodnya-Tikā on Yājňavalkyn). This text, as also Visņu's text pitsvibhaktā, etc. etc. (Text No. 1005), refers to the case of a Son who was in the womb at the time of partition and was born after the partition; and the meaning is that such a Son should be given his share made up of something given out of his own share by each of the Brothers among whom the property has been divided.-A Son other than the said one (i.e. one who is born after partition), shall receive the Father's share, as declared by Manu and others; and this declaration refers to the Son whose conception (presence in the womb) was not definitely known at the time of partition; because in cases where signs of pregnancy are distinctly porceptible, there can be no partition (till delivery takes place). So says the Author of the Prakasha.-Halāyudha, quoting this text of Yājñavalkya, after that of Vişņu (No. 1005), says-what is meant is that in case the Son born after partition from the Wife of the same caste as oneself is endowed with good qualities, he receives his due share out of the whole of the partitioned property, what is visible and what is not visible--if, on the other hand, he is devoid of good qualities, then he receives his share only out of what is visible-dyshyāt', in the shape of grains and such things, produced from the lands; after deducting the debts incurred by the Brothers--- (Vivādaratnākara, pp. 539-540). This refers to cases where a Son has been born after the partition is made after the Father's death. During the Father's life-time, signs of pregnancy were not clearly discernible in the Mother; after the Father's death, when the Sons have divided the property among themselves, a Son is bora to the Mother; this Son is entitled to a share, -vibhāga' is the same as 'bhāga'; that is, he receives a share made up of portions taken from the property already partitioned; ;-Or he shall receive his share 'out of what is visible',-i.e. such property as household-utensils, conveyances, milch cattle, ornaments, slaves and sɔ forth; the egast extent of these being determined by taking into account the accrations and the lusses. The term 'visible', 'dyshya', serves to preclude the assigning of his share out of such articles as may be hidden. Though the Son born after the partition is as good a Son as the others, yet, in as much as his existence could not be known at the time of partition, it is only fair and equitable that there should bs & slight diminution in the share allotted to him. It is in view of this that the second alternative (B) has been set forth. At the same time, as the fact of his existence not being knowo at the time of partition was not due to any fault of his owa, thora is no graat impropriety in the first alternative (A) either-Sinstichandrikā, pp. 711-712). This refers to ancestral property--(Dayabhāga, p. 133). (B) In the compound ' tadvibhāgah', the pronoun'tat' stands for the Son born after partition;-'va' means "ēva'; his share shall come out of that only which is drshya', visible, and which is 'āyavyayavisho dhita'; -'âyo' stands for the profit that has accrued to the share of each Brother through his agricultural and other operations; 'vyaya' for such necessary items of expenditure as the paymont of the Father's debts, the maintenance of the Household and the like. Thus the msaning is that the profits shall be added to, and the expenditure deducted from, the property inherited by the Brothers, and then each of the Brother shall give, out of his share, & proportionate part, in such a way as to provide for the new-bora Brother a share equal to that of each of them.-In cases where, in the Mother or the Sister-in-law, signs of pregnancy are already perceptible, the partition has to be postponed tili the delivery-Madanapārijāta, p. 656). (A) The first sentence lays down the method of apportioning the share of the Son that may be born after partition. The meaning is as follows:-After the Sons have divided the property, if a Son is born of the Wife belonging to the same caste as the Husband, he receives the share of his parents; the Mother's share going to him only if she has no Daughters. If the Son born after partition is from a Wife of a different caste, he receives only his own share out of the Father's share (not the ·252 VIVÅDACHINTĀMANI Vişnu (17.3) (1007) 'Those who have become separated from the Father shall give a share to the Son that may be born after the partition.' 3 whole), but of the Mother's property, he receives the whole, provided there is no Daughter. The qualification of the same caste' implies that, if the Son is born of the Wife of a different caste, he receives only his own share out of the Father's property; but of the Mother's property, he gets the whole, if there is no Daughter. (B) In the second sentence, what is meant is that in cases where, after the Father's death, his property has been divided by the Sons among themselves,--and after that a Son is born of a Wife of their Father's in whom signs of pregnancy were not discernible at the time of partition,-his share shall consist of what the Brothers give him out of the property inherited by them, as determined after accounting for the arcretions and deductions during the interval-such share being equal to their own individual share. This same rule applies also to the case of the posthumous Son being born of the Sister-in-law in whom signs of pregnancy had not been discernible at the time of partition. In cases where such signs are clearly discernible, the partition has to be postponed till the child is born—(Parāsharamādhava, pp. 339–341). (A) Yājñavalkya lays down the method of apportioning the share of the Son born after partition. When the Sons have become separated, either by their Father's or by their own wish, during the life-time of the Parents,-if another Son is born to the Father from a Wife of the same caste as himself, that Son is entitled to a share;—'vibhāga' is share, of the Parents, and this goes to the said Son; but the Mother's share goes to him only if there are no Daughters. The qualification of the same caste' implies that if the Son is born of a Wife of a different caste, he receives only his own share out of the Father's share, but of the Mother's property, he gets the whole, if there is no Daughter.-(B) In the second sentence what Yājñavalkya means is that in cases where, after the Father's death, his property has been divided by the Sons among themselves, -and after that a Son is born to a Wife of their Father in whom signs of pregnancy were not discernible at the time of partition, each of the former Sons shall give out of the property inherited by them, as computed in accordance with the income and expenditure since the parti tion,--to that new-born Son, enough to make his share_equal to their own.- 'Dyshyāt-out of what has been inherited by the Sons. Āya' the daily, monthly and yearly income that has accrued to the property;-- vyaya - expenditure, incurred in the paying of the Father's debts and in the marriage of the Sisters; the fulfilment of these two liabilities being a duty incumbent on all Sons;-the 'expenditure' meant here cannot be the expenses incurred by the Brothers on their own account; as such expenditure can have no bearing upon the point at issue ;-out of the Father's property, which has been vishodhita -fairly computed,-in view of the said income and expenditure, the newly born Son is to receive a share equal to the share of each of the other Sons.—What is meant is that the profits that may have accrued to the share of each of the Brothers shall be added to the Father's property, -the amount spent over the necessary liabilities shall be deducted from it-and out of the property thus computed, each Brother shall give out of his share to the newborn Brother, enough to make his share equal to their own.-The particle 'vā' in the second sentence indicates that this sentence puts forward a second option; but an option only in the sense explained above.-Halāyudha has explained 'drshyāt' as such property as is visible, and not hidden,--and has explained that the second sentence pertains to cases where the Son born after the partition is possessed of qualities that are inferior to those possessed by the other Sons. But this view is not correct(Vīramitrodaya, pp. 589-592). This refers to cases where, after the partition made after the Father's death, a Son is born to the Mother or her Co-wife, or of the Brother's Wife-in whom signs of pregnancy were not discernible at the time of partition.--The share of this šon is to be made up by each of the Brothers giving a portion out of his share in such a way as to make the share of the new-born Šon equal to their own individual shares- (Vyavahāramayükha, p. 105). What is meant is that, if a Son was in the womb at the time of partition, and is born subsequently, he also is entitled to receive a share;-'āyavyayavishodhitāt', -computed by taking into account the income and the expenditure; i.e. he receives his share in the property, from what remains of it after such computation.-- 'Drshyâd va'- i.e. out of what is visible as well as what is not visible-both kinds of ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 253 The meaning of this is the same as that of the preceding text.* In regard to the second kind of Son born after Partition [i.e. one who was not in the womb at the time of Partition], says JIanu (9.216)- [1008] (A) 'If a Son is born after partition, he shall receive the share of the Father only.- (B) If any be reunited with him, he should share it with them.' (A) What is indicated by the particle 'ēva', 'only', is that the new -born Son spoken of here does not receive his share out of the share of his Brothers, --as is done by the Son who had been in the womb (at the time of partition), --what he receives is only the Father's property. In regard to this also there is a further peculiarity: If the Son in question is desirous of having his share while the Father is still alive, and the Father also is a greeable to this division,--then the Father's share in the property should be divided into two parts, one for the Father and one for the Son born after partition. On the death of the Father however, his entire property goes to the said Son bom after partition.-(B) In case the Father has become 'reunited' with his Brother, or with his Son (who had become separated), and then dies, the new-born Son obtains the Father's share in this reunited joint property). [This same text is quoted and commented upon in Section (1) where the explanation is 'If having been asserted that the new-born Son alone is entitled to inherit the property, the meaning of the second line must be that it is only when there is no new-born Son that the reunited Son can inherit the Father's share.t . what they had got at the partition.— Iya' is income, accretion; * nyaya', expenditure, diminution. Hence, he shall receive his share out of what remains after the paying off of the liabilities, but not including in it anything that may hare accrued to it since the partition. According to Halāyudha, the two optional alternatives are in reference to the freedom being endowed or not endowed with superior qualifications -(Vibhāgasāra 13.1–6). * The divided Sons shall make good the share of the Son who was in the womb at the time of the partition,-irrespectively of the fact of the pregnancy being known or unknown to people -(Vivādachandra 20.1-8). (See notes on preceding text, for notes from Vivādaratnākara.) This text refers to the Son born after partition made during the Father's lifetime.-In & case where the Sons have become separated from the Father, and after this partition another Son is born to the Father of his Wife in whom signs of pregnancy were not discernible at the time of partition,--the former Sons shall give to this son his share which, by reason of their ignorance of his existence (in the Mother's womb), become included in their own. -The Father need not give him the share that is contained in the share retained by the Father for himself; but he shall continue to live with the new-born Son, having received, on behalf of this son, his share given by his elder Brothers; because this Son would require to be looked after during his minority. This is the roason why the Text declares that 'those separated from the Father should give', and not that the Father and those separated from him should give -(Smrtichandrikā, p. 709). If the land and other ancestral property have been partitioned, then the new-born Son shall receive his share of that property from his Brothers—(Dāyabhāga, p. 131). If, by chance, the ancestral property has been partitioned before the Mother has passed the child-bearing age, then what is declared in the present text is to be done. This does not refer to the Father's self-acquired property; as if it did, it would be inconsistent with Brhaspati's text by which the Father's share goes entirely to the new-born Son (vide Text No. 1008 below)-(Vyavahāramayukha, p. 105). † (A) After the partition has been made-in which the Father has taken two shares for himself, --if a Son happen to be born, he shall receive these two shares, during the Father's life-time--if the Father so wishes or after the Father's death; and his elder Brothers shall not complain as to why he should have two shares. If, however, such is not the Father's wish, then he shall be assigned & share equal to their own.-(B) In case the separated Sons of the Father become 'reunited' with him, after the partition has been made, then the Father's share, on his death, shall go to them, and the additional property accruing therefrom shall be assigned ·254 VIVADAOHNTAMANI Brhaspati (25.17)- [1009] "When half-brothers or uterine Brothers have become separated from the Father,--the Sons born subsequently shall receive the Father's by them as the share of the new-born Brother. This property thus devolves upon the Son, and after the Father's death, he receives his share out of that same property, in accordance with what has been declared by Manu under 9.210—(Medhătithi). (A) 'Of the Father alone'-This implies that at the partition, during his lifetime, the Father has to have a share for himself. If several Sons are born after the partition, that same 'Father's share' shall be divided among all of them.-(B) If some of the Sons become 'reunited' with the Father, then, as their property shall have become merged in the Father's property, that whole property shall be divided among all the Brothers-(Sarvajñanārāyana). (A) Where, at the wish of the Sons, the Father has made a division of the property during his life-time-if another Son is born to him after that division, this son, on the Father's death, shall receive only what belonged to the Father.--- (B) In case the separated Sons have become freunited',-and their properties amalgamated with the Father's,-then the said Son shall share that amalgamated property with the reunited Song-Kullūka). In all cases where the division of the property has been made by the Father,- if a child is born after the division,then, on the Father's death, he shall receive the property that had fallen to the share of the Father at the time of the partition.- (B) If some of the separated Sons have become “reunited' with the Father, the Father shall divide his property equally among those and the new-born Son. In a case where the Mother has evinced signs of pregnancy before the Father's death, if there is no ‘Father's share' that could go to the posthumous Son, the other Sons, even though separated, shall provide a share for him-(Rāghavānanda). He shall receive only the Father's share, and he shall have no share in the property assigned to the other Sons. An exception is added-In the event of some Sons having become 'reunited' with the Father, the new-born Son shall share the united property equally with them-(Nandana). If the Sons have become ‘reunited' with the Father, he shall share his property with them--(Ramachandra). 'Pitryam - pitroh idam', 'belonging to the Parents'; which would be in keeping with another text which declares that the Son born before partition is not entitled to the share of the Parents, and the Son born after partition is not entitled to the share of the Brothers'.- If certain Sons, who had become separated from the Father, have become reunited with him, then, after the Father's death, the Son born after partition shall share it with those reunited Sons-(Mitākşarā, pp. 651-653). The Son born after the partition shall take only the Father's share, not the share of the Brothers. In the absence of the Father and other Brothers, the said Son shall share the property with the freunited' Brothers.--No significance attached to the singular number in Jātaḥ' [i.e. even if there are several Sons thus born, the same rule is applicable? — (Aparārka, p. 729). 'Pitryam'-what belongs to the parents. If some Sons who had become separated from the Father, had become ‘reunited' with him, then the Son born after partition shall share the property with them--Madanapārijāta, p. 655). After the Sons have become separated from the Father, if a Son is born, this Son shall receive the entire share of the Father, after his death; while during the Father's life-time, he shall receive only a part of the Father's share. The particle kēva'implies that he shall receive nothing out of the shares of the separated Brothers (Vivādaratnākara, p. 538). Those born after the partition are entitled to the Father's share only, and the other Sons shall have no share in that share. If, however, a separated Son had become freunited' with the Father, then, in that case, the Son born after partition shall share the Father's share with that reunited' Son- (Vivādachandra 20.1-8). The particle ‘ēva' indicates that if the Son has been in the womb at the time of partition, he receives his share out of the shares of his Brothers; but if his conception has taken place after the partition, then he receives only that which had fallen to the share of the Father--(Vibhagasāra 13.1-10). In a case where the Father and Son have become reunited after partition, if there is another Son still separated from the Father,—and no other Son is born after the said 'reunion', then the whole property of the Father shall go to the freunited' Son, not to the Son who has remained separated-(Dāyanirnaya 22.1-5).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 255 share. The Son born before (partition) has no right over the Father's share; and the one born after partition has no right over the share of the Brothers.' [Second half quoted again as Text No. 1067 below.] The Sons born subsequently'-(.e. conceived before, but born after, the partition)-receive only the Father's share,-just like those (conceived as well as) born to the Father after he has been separated from the other Sons. -The Son born after partition has no right, etc. etc.'--that is, the Son born before partition and the Son born after partition are equal [in the sense that the former does not share the Father's property and the latter does not share the Brothers' property].* 'Pitryameva', 'of the Father alone', has to be construed with the second sentence also. Hence there is no inconsistency with what has been said before. This rule refers to the case where the Father has died while living conjointly with the Son born after partition_(Smrtichandrikā, p. 711). If the separated Sons become 'reunited with the Father, they are entitled to share the Father's property with the Son born after the previous partition- (Parāsharamadhava, p. 340). The Father has divided the Sons, retaining for himself the share ordained in the Scriptures,--and then he dies, while living apart from his Sons; in this case, the Son that may have been born after the said division shall receive the Father's whole share, as his own. In a case where the Father has died after being 'reunited' with some of his separated Sons, the Son born after partition shall give shares in the Father's property to those reunited' Sons-Dāyabhāga, p. 130). In cases where the Father has made the partition during his life-time, the Son born after that partition,-if born from a Wife of a different caste, receives only that to which his caste entitles him, not the entire share of the Father.--'Pitryam' is the property of the Parents'; it is this alone that the Son shall take, in accordance with the rule relating to Sons of different castes.-The particle 'ēva' implies that his Brothers are not to extract parts of their shares, others make up his share for him equal to their own. If some of the Sons, after separating from the Father, have become freunited' with him, then, the Father's share shall be shared with these, and the whole of it shall not be taken by the new-born Son-(Piramitrodaydi, pp. 590-591). If any Son becomes “reunited' with the Father, then the property shall be shared with him-(Vyavahāramayukha, p. 104). * The right reading is "Pūrvajaḥ vibhaktājashcha sama ityarthah'. The meaning of the second sentence is that the Son born before partition has no right over the property of the parents, from whom they have separated; and the Son born after partition has no right over the share of the elder Brother- (Mitäksarā, p. 653). If the share of the previously-bom Sons happen to be large, and that of the subsequently-born ones small,—consisting as the latter does of the Father's share divided among them, even then, the latter are not to receive anything out of the share of the Brothers previously separated~(4 parārka, p. 729). 'Purrajaḥ-one born before partition; i.e. one who has become separated from the Father,—has no right over the Father's share; and the 'vibhaktajah', Son born to the Father after his separation from the elder Son, 'has no right' over the Brother's share--(Vivādaratnākara, p. 538). The word 'pitybhāgaharāḥ' means 'having a share only in the Father's share'. This refers to those whose conception has taken place after the partition. The third line provides the reason for what has been asserted regarding the subsequently. born Son receiving a share in the Father's share only: 'Anīshahhaving no right. The sentence 'anishaḥ pūrvajaḥ pitryē should be understood to mean--because they have been separated from the Father'; and the phrase 'bhrātņbhāgē vibhaktajaḥ to mean -“because the property of the Son born after partition did not enter into the property of the Brothers (Smrtichandrikā, p. 710). Pūrvajah' -one born before partition, who has already got his share out of the Father's property; the Son born after partition also 'has no right' over the share of the Brother. The last sentence provides the reason for what has gone before (Viramitrodaya, pp. 590-591). > ·256 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI Again- [1010] 'The property that has been acquired by the Father himself after being separated from his Sons goes entirely to the Son born after that separation; those born before have been declared as having no right over it. As in regard to the Property, so also in regard to Debts, Gifts, Pledges, and purchases, they have no concern with each other; barring impurity and water-offerings.' (a) If a Son was in the womb at the time of separation (Partition),- and was born after the partition,—the share of such a Son should be made up by the divided co-sharers out of their own respective shares ;-(0) any other Son that may be born to the Father after his separation from his Sons (who was not already in the womb at the time of the partition), is entitled to the Father's own share only;-that such is the opinion of Manu and others is clearly established.* M SECTION (M) SONS-DIFFERENT VARIETIES are Says Yama [1011] "The wise sages have spoken of twelve Sons; of these, six "Kinsmen" and "Heirs”, -and six are “Kinsmen", not "Inheritors". (1) The first is One Begotten by Oneself, (2) the second is the Soil-born, (3) the third is the Son of the Appointed Daughter-so say people versed in Law; (4) the fourth is One Begotten of the Remarried Woman; (5) the fifth is the Maiden-born; (6) One Born Secretly in the house ;-these six have been declared to be offerers of the Cake.-(7) the Cast-off, (8) the One Received with the Bride, (9) the Adopted, (10) the Appointed, (11) the Bought as the fifth, and (12) the Self-offered; these Nature-born Sons are Kinsmen, not Inheritors.' And Närada- [1012] (1) 'The Body-born, (2) the Soil-born, (3) the Son of the Appointed Daughter, (4) the Maiden-born, (5) One Received with the Bride, (6) the Jaghanyajah-Like the son bom after partition this Son also receives only the Father's share.--'Anishaḥ pūrvajaḥ',-i.e. if he has been separated from the Father-(Vibhāgasāra 13.1-11). * Whatever has been acquired by the Father after partition, all that goes to the Son born after partition-(Mitākṣarā, p. 653). The term 'sarvam', 'entirely', implies that, even when the Father has acquired a very large property, it shall go to the new-born Son.-The declaration that they are concerned with each other only in regard to 'impurity and water-offerings serves to preclude all title to property.--This applies only to the Father's selfacquired property--(Dāyabhāga, p. 131). The term sarvam', 'entirely', is meant to preclude the notion that— inasmuch as the elder Sons have had no share in the property subsequently acquired by the Father, they should share in it'.-The elder Brothers and the new-born Son would have no rights over each other's property, and they would be like strangers, with this little difference that they would be concemed with each other, in regard to 'impurity (relating to Deaths and Births) and 'water-offerings',-not in regard to property.--Adhana' is pledge-(Smrtichandrikā, pp. 710-711). Unless the new-born Son receives a share from the previously-separated Sons, he shall not be liable to pay the debts-(Vyavahāramayukha, p. 104). The property that the Father may have acquired after the partition, that also goes only to the Son born after the partition (Voramitrodaya, p. 590; also Parāsharamādhava, p. 340).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 257 Secretly Born, (7) the Begotten of the Remarried Woman, (8) the Cast-off, (9) the Adopted, (10) the Bought, (11) the Appointed, and (12) the Self-offered; these have been declared to be the twelve Sons. Among these, six are “Kinsmen" and "Inheritors", and six are "Kinsmen" not “Inheritors".-Each preceding one is held to be Senior, and each succeeding one Junior. On the death of the Father, these succeed to his property in due order,—the Junior one receiving it in the absence of the Senior.' That is, the succeeding one is entitled to inherit the property only in the absence of the preceding one. Manu (9.158–160) [1013] ‘Among the twelve kinds of Sons that Janu Srāyambhuva has mentioned, six are “Kinsmen as well as “Inheritors", and six are “Kinsmen", not "Inheritors".--The Body-born, the Soil-born, the Adopted, the Appointed, the Secretly Bom, and the Cast-off, these six are “Inheritors" as well as "Kinsmen". The Maiden-born, the One received with the Bride, the Bought, the Begotten of the Remarried Woman, the Self-offered and the Shūdrā-born,--these six are only “Kinsmen", not "Inheritors".'* $ * The term 'bandhu' here stands for the Bandhava, Kinsman.-These take the Gotra as well as the Property. The reverse of this are the latter six.--Those that have been described as not heirs are so only in the presence of the Body-born (legitimate) Son; and all that is meant by the distinction is that the first six are larger beneficiaries than the second six. Among the first group, all except the Body-born are equal beneficiaries, and less than these are the second group of six; all these of the latter group are equal, and there is no difference among themselves, due to their being mentioned earlier or later in the list (Medhatithi on 9.165). Dāyāda', inheritor of the property of Bandhus,--paternal uncle, etc.-in the absence of their direct heirs,-i.z. Son, Wife, Daughter and so forth. The second group of six are not dāyāda,-i.e. not inheritors of the property of the uncle and others.--even when these latter have no Son or other heirs, their property will go to the Sagotras, not to the second group of 'Sons''Kinsmen' are liable to make the water and other offerings. These six are neither Heirs nor Kinsmen'; the compound 'adāyādabāndhaväh' being expounded as 'adāyādāḥ' (not Heirs) and fabāndhavāh' (not Kinsmen)-(Sarvajñanārāyana). Among the twelve Sons enumerated by Manu, the first six are 'Kingmen', as also 'partakers of the Gotra and the property'; and being 'Kinsmen', they offer water and cake to Sapindas and Samānodakas of the Father, and also take his property. That they inherit property is going to be declared later on.-The second set of six do not take the Gotra or property; they are only 'Kinsmen', and as such perform the duty of 'Kinsmen' in offering water, etc.-It is not right to regard the second set as 'reither Kinsmen nor Heirs (as Sarvajñanārāyaṇa has done); as they have been distinctly called 'bandhus' (Kinsmen) by Baudhāyana who calls them 'gotrabhājaḥ' (taking the Gotra)-(Rullūka). ‘Bandhudāyada? -those who take the Gotra, offer the cake and water and inherit the property.— Adāyādabāndhava',-those who do not receive the property, but, like Kinsmen, confer upon the Father the benefit of offering water (Raghavānanda). Manu divides the Sons into two categories_(Q) 'bandhudāyāda', and (6) 'adāyādabāndhava'-the latter term negatives both characters; those who belong to this second category are neither 'Dāyāda' nor 'Bandhava'. Some people have held that it is only the ‘dāyāda' (Heirship) that is negatived, not the 'bāndhava' (Kinsmanship)--(Nandana). The five sons-Soil-born, Adopted, Appointed, Secretly Born, and Cast-offreceive their share also when the Body-born Son is there; while the Maiden-born and the rest get it only when the preceding ones are not there (Vishvarūpa on Yājña., p. 249). 17 ·258 VITĀDACHINTĀMANI Baudhāyana- [1012] 'The Body-born, the Son of the Appointed Daughter, the Soil-born, the Adopted, the Appointed, the Secretly Born and the Cast-off,- these they declare to be partakers of the Property. The Maiden-born, One Obtained with the Bride, the Bought, One Born of a Remarried Woman, the Self-offered and the Nişāda (the Shüdra-born),--these they declare to be partakers of the Gotra.' After having named (1) the Body-born, (2) the Son of the Appointed Daughter, (3) the Soil-born, (4) the Maiden-born, (5) the Secretly Born (6) the Cast-off, (7) the One Obtained with the Bride, (8) the Son of the Remarried Woman, (9) the Adopted, (10) the Self-offered, (11) the Appointed and (12) the Bought,--Dēvala continues- [1013] 'These are the twelve Sons that have been declared to serve the purpose of propagating the race; some of them are born of one's own self, some born of others, some acquired and some obtained by chance.- Among these the first six are Kinsmen and Inheritors, while the others belong to the Father alone. There is also a distinction made among these Sons on the basis of the order in which they are mentioned.-All these have been declared to be the Inheritors of the property of the Father who has no Body-born Son.-The seniority of those others ceases as soon as the Body-born Son is born.-Among the Sons, those that belong to the same caste as the Father are entitled to the third part of a share; those belonging to lower castes shall live under the said Son, being supported with food and clothing.' * What is meant is that when the Father's Sapindas or Samānodakas die without leaving a nearer heir, their property goes to the first six, not to the second six; but bandhavatva', 'kinsmanship-which consists in liability to make the water and other offerings, either through Sagotra or Sapinda relationship, belongs equally to both the sets.--As regards the Father's property, they are all entitled to inherit it, as is clear from Manu 9.185. Therefore, the term 'dāyāda' in the text cannot mean 'heirs' to the Father's property; specially because it is well known that it always means Inheritors to the property of persons other than the Father- (Mitāksarā, pp. 703–710). The liability to make the water and other offerings due to Sagotra and Sapinda relationship,-belongs to both groups. As for inheriting the Father's property, all the Sons are entitled to it, in the absence of those preceding them in the list (Parāsharamadhava, p. 349). The distinction made between the two groups is in regard to being the dayāda: (Inheritor of property) and 'bandhu' (kinsman, liable to offer water, etc.) to the Sapindas and Samanodakas of the Father to whom the Sons belong, and what is meant is that so far as Kinsmanship liability to offering water, etc. is concerned, it rests in all the twelve; but so far as inheriting property-being dãyāda'-is concerned, it rests in the first six only, not in the second six. The distinction does pot appertain to the Father's property; Yājñavalkya (2.133) and Manu_(9.185) have both clearly stated the title of all the secondary Sons to inherit the Father's property. Further, the term 'dāyāda' is mostly used in the sense of persons inheriting the property of persons other than the Father—(Viramitrodaya, p. 619). *The six sons-Body-born and the restare partakers of the property, not only of the Father, but also of Sapindas and othör Kinsmen; while the others inherit the property of the Father only, not of Sapindas and others. And of the Father's property, they receive the wider, if there is no Body-born Son. If there is a Body-born Son, then they,--if of the same caste as the Father,mare entitled to the third part of a share-Dayabhāga, p. 147). 17B ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 259 Having mentioned the Body-born, tlie Soil-bom, the Son of the Appointed Daughter, the Son of the Remarried Woman, the Vaiden born, the Secretly Born, the One Obtained with the Bride, the Adopted, the Bought, the Self-offered and the Cast-off-irrespective of where they have been born, l'işnu says- (1014) 'Among these, each preceding one is superior to the succeeding one; he alone shall take the Inheritance; and he will support the others.' That is, the order is as follows:—the first is the Body-born Son,-the second, the Soil-born Son,--the third, the Son of the Appointed Daughter,--- the fourth, the Son of the Remarried Woman,—the fifth, the laiden-born, the sixth, the Secretly Born,—the seventh, the Son Obtained with the Bride, the eighth, the Adopted,—the ninth, the Bought,--the tenth, the Self-offered, the eleventh, the Cast-off.--the twelfth, the Pārashara.-Others place the Appointed as the twelfth and the Pārashara as the thirteenth.* In regard to disputes arising regarding the claims of these lişņu says- [1015) "[The Sons are] Body-born, Soil-born, Son of the Appointed Daughter, Secretly Born, Maiden-born, Born of a Remarried Woman, Adopted, Bought, Appointed, Self-offered, Obtained with the Bride and the Cast. off;-among these, each succeeding one offers the cake and inherits the property in the absence of the preceding one.' Yājñavalkya (2.128-132)— [1016] '(1) One born of the lawful Wife is the Body-born Son; (2) Equal to him is the Son of the Appointed Daughter;—(3) that born in one's own "Soil”, through a Sagotra or another person, is the Soil-born Son; -(5) that born secretly in the house is the Secretly Born Son;-(5) that born of an unmarried girl is the Maiden-born Son, who belongs to his maternal grandfather;-(6) that born from a Remarried Woman, either a virgin or otherwise, is the Son Born of a Remarried woman;- (7) one whom the Father or Mother has given away is the Adopted Son ;-(8) that sold by the parents is the Bought Son;~(9) that appointed by oneself is the Appointed Son ;-(10) one who has offered himself is the Self-offered Son; (11) one who was obtained in the womb *Anaurasa'--one who has no Body-born Son.-Atmajāḥ, etc. etc. -Among the Sons enumerated, which one comes under which category will be clear from the definitions provided (by Yajñavalkya, for instance)-(Vīramitrodaya, p. 620). This refers to all the twelve kinds of Sons.—Dayaharāh'-entitled to the full share. Among the Sons besides the Body-born, those who belong to the same caste as the Father receive a third part of the share if the Body-born Son is there (Smrtitattva II, pp. 168-169). 'Inheritors of the property-i.e. entitled to full shares; those of them who are not of the same caste as the Father are entitled to a share equal to the third part of the share of the Body-born Son. Among these, the first six, etc. etc.';—the first six inherit the property, not only of the Father, but of all Sapindas also,-while the latter six inherit the property of the Father and Mother only. The order of succession on this point is briefly as follows:-(1) the Body-born Son, (2) the Son of the Body-born Son, (3) the Grandson of the Body-born Son, (4) the Son of the dead Son, the Grandson of the dead Son, (5) the Appointed Daughter, (6) the Grandson of the Appointed Daughter. If a Body-born Son is Son after the 'appointment' of the Daughter, that Son and the Appointed Daughter receive equal shares. In the absence of all these, the property is to go to the Soil-born and other Sons- (Dāyanirnaya 4.1-9). Vibhāgasāra (14.1-5) has the same order; but at the end it adds—this opinion of others cannot be right, as Manu has declared the number of Sons to be twelve only.

·260 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI is the Son Obtained with the Bride;--- (12) one who, on being abandoned (by the parents) has been taken up is the Cast-off Son.-From among these, the funeral cake shall be offered, and the property inherited, by each succeeding one in the absence of the preceding one.' 'Dharmapatni', 'Lawful Wife', is the properly married Wife of the same caste as oneself;--the Son begotten by one on such a Wife is the Body. born Son; the definition of this son being 'one who is begotten by one's own properly married Wife of the same caste'. (2) The second is the Son of the Appointed Daughter, 'Putrikāputra'. (3) The third is the Soil-born Son.-This Son belongs to the owner of the 'Soil' (i.e. the Husband of the Woman) if he has been begotten by his wish; and he belongs to the man owner of the Seed, if he has been begotten by the wish of this latter; and he belongs to both, if he has been begotten by the wish of both. (4) The fourth is the Secretly Born Son; he belongs to the man who has married his mother and who belongs to the same caste as himself. (5) The fifth is the Maiden-born Son; he belongs to his Maternal Grandfather if this latter has no Son; but to the man who has married his Mother, if this man has no other Son. (6) The sixth is the Son of the Remarried Woman; he belongs to the man who has remarried the Woman. (7) The seventh is the Adopted Son; he belongs to the man who has adopted him. (8) The eighth is the Bought Son; he is one who has been given away by the Father and Mother in consideration of price received, and belongs to the man who has bought him on account of his having no child of his own. (9) The ninth is the Appointed Son; when a man having no Son is desirous of having one whom he could treat as Son, and there is another person who desires to be treated as his Son,-if the former requests the latter to become his Son and the latter agrees to it, he becomes the 'Son' of the former. (10) The tenth is one who has offered himself; if one who has no Father or Mother living, or who has been abandoned by them through anger,- comes and offers himself to another man as his Son, he becomes the Son of that man. (11) The eleventh is one who has been Obtained with the Bride; when a pregnant girl is married, the Son born to her becomes the son of the man who married her. (12) The twelfth is the cast-off; when a child is abandoned by both or either one of the parents, through poverty or some such cause, and he is taken up by another person, he becomes the 'Son of this person. Brhaspati [1017] 'The Body-born Son alone has been declared to be the owner of the property; equal to him is the Appointed Daughter ;-the other sons are only entitled to maintenance.' And Manu (9.163) [1018] "The Body-born Son alone is the owner of the paternal property; but in order to avoid unkindness to the others, he shall provide maintenance for them.'† * For a full account of the several texts bearing upon the exact character of each one of these 'Sons', the reader is referred to my 'Hindu Law in its Sources', Vol. II, pp. 170–250. † If the Body-born Son is there, all the others--Soil-born and the restare not "heirs'; they are to receive from the Body-born Son only a subsistence allowance.

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 261 * Anrshamsya'-avoidance of unkindness, i.e. Pity.- Prajīvanam' maintenance. In a case where the Son of the Appointerl Daughter * has been taken up, and then a Body-born Son is born,-the former receives the same share as the latter; as has been declared by the same authority (anu 9.134) [1019] 'If a Son happens to be born after the Daughter has been appointed, the division shall be equal; as there is no seniority for the woman.' † In order to avoid ‘unkindness '-i.e. the sin involved in it;-the Body-born Son would incur sin if he did not provide maintenance for the other Sons-(-Vedhătithi). This text refers to a case where the man, having failed, through disease ur other causes, to have a Body-born Son, has obtained the Soil-born or other Sons; but later on, having been cured of the disease, has a Body-born Son born to him.- In such a case, the Body-born Son alone is the owner of the Father's property.- 'For the rest ,- for all the other Sons',-except the Soil-born, for whom a 'sixth part of a share is going to be definitely assigned,-he should provide maintenance, in order to avoid sin-(Kullūka). This provides for Food and Clothing for the Adopted and other Sons.--Pasunaḥ of the Property: -Pitryasya'-of what belonged to the Father.Prajīranam' -subsistencerāgharānanda). The term 'aurasa' here means lauful, and hence stands for all kinds of Sons; the meaning being that—whichever individual, in the capacity of a Son, is entitled to inherit the property, shall inherit the whole of it, and for the rest, he shall provide maintenance (F'ishrarūpa, p. 249). This rule should be understood to apply to those cases where the Adopted and other Sons are inimical to the Body-born Son and also devoid of good qualities. For the Soil-born Son, Manu himself (9.164) has laid down the fifth or sixth part of a share.—[*Ēka ēra' means the Primary Son alone, thus providing the reason for what is asserted here,--the reason being because he is the Primary Son';_says Bālambhatti]—(Aitakşarā, p. 701). 'For the rest?-i.e. for all those who hare been declared, in several texts, as not entitled to share the property.–Anyshamsiya' is kindness, pity.--"Prajīvanam', maintenance.- (Vivādaratnākara, p. 542).—Taken along with Kātyāyana's text 'Utpanne tvaurasē putrē, etc.' (below, No. 1020).--the present text implies that the mere maintenance is meant for such secondary Sons as do not belong to the same caste as the Father-(Vivādarat nākara, p. 545). This refers to cases where the Body-born Son was born before the others were taken up-(Vivādachandra, 24.1-3). This is meant only to eulogise the Body-born Son, and not to preclude the 'fourth of a share' that has been assigned to the other Sons in other Smrtis- (Parāsharamadhava, p. 348). In reality, if the Body-born Son is there, the Appointed and other Sons receive only the third part of a share.—The rest stands for Sons belonging to castes different from that of the Father-(Dvaitanirnaya, p. 38). Those who belong to castes lower than that of the Father or of his Body-born Son are entitled only to food and clothing (Däyabhāga, p. 148). This should be taken to mean that in cases where the Adopted and other Sons are inimical to the Body-born Son, they shall not receive the fourth part of a share', etc. that have been assigned to them in some texts; it should also be taken as applying to the Maiden-born and other Sons; because it is these latter who have been declared to be entitled to food and clothing only, when the Body-born Son is there(Vīramitrodaya, p. 616). Anyshamsya'-is maintenance-(Vibhāgasära, 14.2-8). * There is some confusion regarding the name 'putrikāputrah'. This has been taken to mean (1) the Daughter who has been appointed' by the Father (at her marriage, by reason of being given away on a certain understanding) as also (2) the Son of such a Daughter. We have rendered the name in English as Son of the Appointed Daughter',--the preposition 'of' according to the first explanation of the name, denoting apposition. See in this connection Aparārka, Vitāksarā and others on Yājñavalkya 2.128—and Hindu Law in its Sources, Vol. II, + 'The division shall be equal'.-There shall be equal shares with the Son thus born; this precludes the Preferential Share.—There is no seniority';—the 'seniority 3 pp. 180-181. 3 ·262 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Kätyāyana- [1020] 'When the Body-born Son is born, the other Sons belonging to the same caste as the Father are entitled to the third [i.e. fourth] of a share; those not belonging to the same caste as the Father are entitled to food and clothing only.' This title to the third of a share' belongs to the Soil-born Son only, as is clear from the following text of the Brahma-Purāņa, which has the same source as the present text. * precluded is only in regard to the share in the inheritance, not in regard to the respectful treatment to be accorded to her-(Medhatithi). This text answers the question as to the permissibility of the Preferential Share for the Son of the Appointed Daughter in the stated case, which may be considered to be due to her by reason of her seniority.-'If a Son be born'-to the said Daughter's Father.—'Seniority'- due to the presence of such qualities as Learning and the like, which are not possible for the woman-(Sarvajñanārāyana). If after the Daughter has been 'appointed', the man who has made the 'appointment' happen to have a Son born to him, then at the time of the partition between these two Sons', there shall be equal division; and no Preferential Share shall be given to the Appointed Daughter; because even though she is “senior' in age, that seniority will not be taken into account for the purpose of assigning a Preferential Share-(Kullūka). As there is no 'seniority' for the Daughter, there can be none for her Son either -(Raghavānanda). Anu-jāyate: -is born after-the Appointment of the Daughter.---To the woman' —or to her Son-(Nandana). In view of the notion being entertained that when the Body-born Son has been bom, and both he and the Son of the Appointed Daughter are present, the property should go to the Body-born Son',-Manu has here set forth an exception to the general rule laid down by Yājňavalkya (2.132)-(Mitākṣarā, p. 699). [On this the Bālaibhattī. -When the Mitāksară says that this refers to a case where both the Aurasya and the Putrikāputra are present, it uses the latter term in the sense of Son born of the Appointed Daughter'; and when the text itself speaks of no 'seniority' belonging to the 'Woman', it has in view the other connotation of the name the Son in the shape of the Appointed Daughter. "A Son-i.e. a Body-born Son ;-'anu'-after the appointment' of the Daughter. - Toman'-in the shape of the Appointed Daughter-Vivādachandra 23.2–8). Here Manu has set aside the notion that under the circumstances stated, so long as the Body-born Son is there, the Son of the Appointed Daughter shall have no share in the property '-(Vīramitrodaya, p. 614). This deals with a case where there is partition between the Appointed Daughter and the Body-born Son.-Because she is a female, seniority cannot belong to her; hence the division shall be in equal shares. The implication is that if the elder were a male, he would receive two shares—(Dāyabhāga, p. 39). This text lends support to the view that the Daughter has almost as much right over her father's property as the Son; as even when there is a Son, the Daughter is to receive a share equal to that of the Son (Dvaitaparishişta, p. 41). In a case where a Daughter has been appointed' and then a Body-born is born,- they shall share the property equally--(Vibhāgasāra, 14.2-3). According to this, the rule is that, if no Body-born Son is born, the Soil-born Son receives the entire property of both his 'Fathers'; but if a Body-born Son is born, he receives only a fourth share [*chaturtha' i.e. for "trtīya '] in the property of their Father-(Aparārka, p. 733). 'Savarnāḥ - those belonging to the same caste as the Father,-i.e. the Adopted, the Soil-born and the rest-are to receive the fourth of a share '; and the 'asavarnāḥ, —those belonging to different castes,-i.e. the Maiden-born, the Secretly Born, the One Obtained with the Bride, and the Son of the Remarried Woman, — do not receive the 'fourth of a share '; these are entitled only to food and clothing (Mitākṣarā, p. 700). [The Bålambhatti explains the word 'asavarņāḥ' ('not belonging to the same caste as the Father') as 'the inferior kinds of Sons'.] On the birth of the Body-born Son, the Adopted and other Sons, belonging to the same caste as the Father, receive the third of a share'.-In Vashistha's text * ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 263 (1021] The Body-born Son, even though born later, should receive the entire estate; the Soil-born shall receive the third of a share, and the Son of the appointed Daughter, the fourth-(Brahma-Purāņa). Others have, however, held that the text (1020 above) refers to a Soilborn Son who may be possessed of very superior qualifications. With reference to the 'Son', T'ashiştha says- [1022] 'If after the taking of a Son, a Body-born Son is born, the former would be entitled to the fourth part of a share, in case there is property (large enough); but only if the property is not employed in auspicious Rites.' The Pronoun 'tasmin' stands for the Son; and 'sa' for the Son who had been taken. After 'yadi syāt', 'in case there is', the expression ‘large enough property should be taken as understood.-But this is to be so only if the property is not employed in auspicious sacrificial rites.* [Text No. 1022 below], the Adopted Son has been assigned the fourth of a share', while in the present text he is assigned the 'third of a share';--this discrepancy is to be reconciled as being due to the difference in the qualifications of the Son concerned; if he is possessed of superior qualifications, he receives the third', while, if not possessed of superior qualifications, he receives only the fourth'.-From this text it follows that the declaration of Manu to the effect that for the other Song, mere maintenance shall be provided'-is meant for only those Sons who do not belong to the same caste as the Father-(Pivādaratnākara, p. 545). On the birth of the Body-born Son, the Adopted and other Sons, if belonging to the same caste as the Father, receive the third of a share'; those belonging to other castes are only to be supported-(Vivādachandra 24.1-5). Some people have declared that the conclusion deduced from a due examination of the present text is that, if the Body-born Son is there, the appointed and other Sons are to receive the third of a share'.--But this cannot be right; because, if we take this text along with the Brahma-Purāna text (No. 1022 below), we find that it is the Soil-born Son alone who is entitled to the third of a share. The qualification 'savarnāḥ', 'belonging to the same caste', also pertains to the Soil. born Son; the Plural Number being used in view of the possibility of there being several Soil-born Sons-(Dvaitaparishişta, p. 38). 'Savarnāḥthose who belong to the same caste as the Father; i.e. the Soil-born, the Adopted, the Bought, the Appointed, the Self-offered and the Cast-off- * Asavarņāņ","those not belonging to the same caste , -i.e. the Maiden-born, the Secretly Born, the One Obtained with the Bride and the Son of the Remarried Woman -Madanapărijāta, p. 651). The term 'asavarnos' stands for 'one belonging to a lower caste'-(Dāyabhāga, 'Savarnāḥ-i.e. the Soil-born, Adopted and the rest; these are entitled to the fourth of a share', if the Body-born son is there.— Asavarņāḥ-i.e. the Maidenborn, Secretly Born, Obtained with the Bride and Born of the Remarried Woman; these are not entitled to the fourth of & share'; they receive only food and clothing -(Viramitrodaya, p. 615). The third of a share' is meant for the Soil-born Son—(Vibhāgasära 17.2–9). * This refers to cases where the Body-born Son is born after a Son has been taken up-(A parārka, p. 739). Even when the Body-born Son is there, the other Sons are entitled to the fourth part of a share. The term 'pratigrhīta' Son spoken of here is meant to be the Adopted, Bought, Appointed and others; it is not confined to the Adopted only; as all these are taken as one's Son (Mitākṣarā, pp. 699-700). ‘A Son'-other than the Body-born.-Sah'--the Son that had been taken up. 'Yadi syāt-,-if the property is a large one; the words 'prabhutom dhanam' being taken as understood.-Yadi nabhyudayikēşu, etc.'--if the property is not employed in the performance of sacrifices and other rites-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 544). After 'a Son'-i.e. any of the substitutes prescribed-has been taken'-if & Body-born Son happen to be born, the former would be entitled to the fourth part of p. 148).

·264 VIVĀDACHINTAMAŅI On this subject all the authorities, Manu and others, have declared that, even when there are other kinds of 'Sons', the entire property of the Father goes to the Body-born Son; and yet these same authorities have also declared that those other Sons' also are entitled to certain shares in that propertythis seeming inconsistency is to be explained in the following manner: It is only in cases where the Body-born Son is possessed of superior qualifications; as it is only such qualified Body-born Son that would be entitled to the entire property; while in cases where the Body-born Son is devoid of good qualifications, while the other Sons are possessed of superior qualifications, these latter are to receive shares in the property. In this same manner, as between the Soil-born Son and the Adopted Son, various sages have declared their title of varying shares--some larger, some smaller,-in the property, -and this also has to be reconciled through considerations of the superior or inferior qualifications possessed by them. There is yet another inconsistency regarding the liability to perform the Shraddha, as resting on the one or the other of them, different views having been expressed by Vişnu and Yajňavalkya--this also may be explained either as two optional alternatives, or as based upon the superior or inferior qualifications of the Sons concerned. With reference to partition between two men who have the same Mother but different Fathers, says Vişnu (17.23) [1023] ‘Among the Sons of several Fathers (progenitors), the shares are determined through the Fathers; each shall receive the property that belonged to his own progenitor, none other.'* The several kinds of Sons have been described in detail in the Shrāddhachintamani; hence, they are not described here. Those 'Sons' who have been taken up in a manner not in keeping with the method laid down in the Scriptures are not true Sons; hence, they are not entitled to inheritance. SECTION (N)--HEIRS TO THE PROPERTY OF SONLESS PERSONS On this subject, says Vişnu (17.4-13) [1024] (A) The property of a Sonless man goes to his Wife;—(B) failing her, to his Daughter;—(C) failing her, to his Mother;-(D) failing her, to his Father ;-(E) failing him, to his Brother;-(F) failing him, to Bandhus ; < 2 a share; if the property is not used by the Body-born Son in the performance of sacrifices-(Vivādachandra 24.2–6). Abhyudayikêşu'-in sacrificial performances (Vibhāgasāra 15.1-2). **Among the Sons of several Fathers '-but of the same Mother-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 543). In a case where, among several Brothers, one has a Body-born Son, and others have other kinds of Sons, -and all these Brothers have died while living together with joint property, -if the said Sons come to divide this ancestral property, the share of each shall be determined in accordance with his being the primary' or ‘secondary' Son of his Father--(Smrtichandrikā, pp. 671-672). In a case where on a single Woman, a Soil-born Son has been begotten first, through someone else,-and then the same Woman gives birth to a Body-born Son to her Husband,--the Soil-born Son shall receive the property of his progenitor (i.e. the someone else by whom he has been begotten), while the Body-born Son shall receive the property of his progenitori.e. the Woman's Éusband- (Vivādachandra 24.1-2). If there are two Sons born of the same Mother, but from different Fathers, each of them receives the property of his own progenitor (Vibhāgasāra 15.1-6). This refers to the case of persons who are born of the same Mother, but from different progenitors (Dāyanirnaya 22.1-3).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 265 ceases -(G) failing them, to Sakulyas ;4(H) failing them, to his fellow-scholar; (1) failing him, to the King,- except in the case of the Brāhmaṇa.' The word 'Bandhu' here stands for Sapinda, and Sakulya’ for Sagotra.* The 'Sapinda' and the "Sagotra' have been thus defined by Bihaspatia [1025] 'The Sapinda-relationship at the seventh degree; the Samānodaka-relationship ceases at the fourteenth degree; according to some, this latter extends up to the point where the birth and name are recognised;-beyond that is the Gotra-relationship.' The term 'anapatyasya', 'Sonless' (in l'işnu's text No. 1024 above) stands for one who has left no Son or Grandson or Great-grandson.-The liability to offer Shrāddha is well known as resting upon the Son or Grandson or Great-grandson', in this same order of sequence in which these are mentioned in the texts,-and the right to inherit property is well known as resting upon the basis of that liability; and hence this right rests upon these in this same order of sequence. (A) Thus it is that—when there is no Great-grandson also, the life becomes entitled to the property. p. 727). * The same remark occurs in the T'irādaratnākara (p. 595), where the opinion is attributed to 'Mishrāḥ'. It cannot be Vāchaspati Mishra who is much later than Chandeshvara. Who is then the 'Mishra' mentioned by the latter? 'Bandhu' here is Sapinda.- Sonless ?-one who has left po Son or Grandson or Great-grandson (Vibhāgasāra 15.1-9 to 10). Here Vişņu declares the Wife's right to inherit the entire property--(Vitākṣarā, Here the Wife's has been declared to be the first claim. It cannot mean that the Wife is to receive just enough for her maintenance; as it would be most illogical to take the same word dhanam', 'property', as standing for only a part in the case of the Wife, and for the whole in the case of the Brother and others. It has to be admitted that the Wife is entitled to the entire property-(Dāyabhāga, p. 15).-Among Nephews (Brother's Sons), the property goes first to the Son of the uterine Brother, and failing him, to the Son of the non-uterine Brother. The Son of the non-uterine Brother, when making the offerings, offers it to the Father of the deceased owner (as his own Grandfather), along with his own Father's Mother, but omits the Mother of the deceased (who is not his Mother); to this extent, his position, in relation to the deceased Brother, is lower (i.e. remoter) than that of the Son of the uterine Brother of the deceased; that is the reason why his title to the property comes after that of the latter-(Dāyabhāga, pp. 206-207). Sonless' here stands for one who has no Son or Grandson or Great-grandson- (Smrtitattva II, p. 189). After the Mother, comes the uterine Brother; then the Son of the uterine Brother.—Dijñānēshvara and others have held that after the uterine Brother, comes the Step-brother, then the Sons of the uterine Brother.—But this cannot be right; because the term 'bhrāts”, “Brother', denotes the uterine Brother primarily, and the step-brother only indirectly, figuratively; and it would be wrong to take the same word in the same sentence in both these connotations.--Others again have held that the term 'bhrataraḥ', 'Brothers', is a copulative compound, standing for 'Brothers and Sisters', so that, in the absence of Brothers, the property should go to the Sister8.-This also cannot be right; because there is nothing to justify the suggested copulative compound. In a case where, at the time of the Uncle's death, the Nephews had not acquired a right in his property, on account of the presence of their Father (the Brother of the deceased),--and subsequently their Father has died, when the dead Uncle's property comes to be divided among the surviving Brothers of the deceased and the said Nephews,—these latter shall receive the share that would have been their Father's. This would be in accordance with the Yājñavalkya 2.120-(Vyavahāramayükha, p. 142). The term Sakulya' and 'Bandhu must stand for the relatives beginning with the Brother's Grandson and ending with the Samānodakas; otherwise, what is asserted here would be inconsistent with other Smộtis.— Sonless '-i.e. one who has left no Son or Grandson or Great-grandson (Dāyanirnaya 9.2-5).

·266 VIVĀDACHINTĀMANI On this subject, Vrddha-Manu says- [1026] The Sonless Widow herself, faithful to her Husband's bed and firm in her vows, shall offer the cake to him and receive his entire share."* So also Brhaspati (25.48–52) [1027] 'Although his kinsmen, his Father, Mother and uterine Brothers be living,—the Wife of a man dying Sonless shall take his share. The Wife dying before her Husband takes away his consecrated Fire; and if the Husband dies before her, the good woman, faithful to her lord, takes his property. Such is the eternal Law.--After having received the moveable and immoveable property, the gold and base metals, the grains, liquids and clothes, she shall have his monthly, six-monthly and yearly Shraddhas offered. She shall propitiate, with funeral offerings and charities, her Husband's Paternal Uncles, Teachers, Daughter's Sons, Sister's Sons and Maternal Uncles, as also aged and helpless persons, guests and women. If Agnates or Cognates, inimical to her, should seek to injure her properties, the King shall inflict on them the punishment ordained for the thief.' The upshot of the whole is this:-The specific enumeration of the Shraddhas indicates that the Wife should perform his first Funeral Shrāddha as also the Yearly Ones and should take his entire property. * This text makes it clear that if a Widow is desirous of being appointed' to bear children, she ceases to be entitled to inheritance; as in that case, she could not be said to be 'faithful to her Husband's bed'.-What is meant is that the Widow who fulfils the conditions here laid down receives her Husband's entire property and offers the Shraddha to him, even when his Father or Brother is there (Aparārka, p. 742). The title of the Widow to her Husband's entire property is set forth here, - (Mitāksarā, p. 726),--but only if she keeps herself under control (Mitāksarā, p. 737). Vows'-The observances and rules laid down for the Widow-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 589). If the Widow fulfills the conditions here laid down, she alone shall receive the Husband's entire property and also offer the Shrāddha to him; and so long as she is there, the Husband's Brother and other relations shall not take the property or offer the Shrāddha.-"Faithful to her Husband's bed',-i.e. well-controlled in her behaviour; - rratē sthitā'-even during her Husband's life-time, keeping the fasts and observances with his permission. This indicates that religious faith also is one of the qualifications necessary for entitling the Widow to inheritance. Though, by her marriage, the Woman became entitled to the property during the Husband's lifetime, through the Husband,—yet what is asserted here is that she acquires independent ownership over the property after his death-(Smytichandrikā, p. 675). In the compound 'tatpindam', the pronoun tat stands for the Husband; hence the meaning is that the Wife obtains the entire share of her Husband, not her own shars(Dayabhaga, p. 152). There is no such sequence meant here as that she shall first obtain the property and then perform the Shrāddha'; for, if such sequence were insisted upon, the performance of the Shrāddha might be delayed; for which there would be no justification. The particle 'ēva' shows that, even though the Brother and other relatives of the Husband may be there, it is the Wife alone who is entitled to take the property and offer the Shraddha (Viramitrodaya, pp. 624-625). In the absence of the Son, Grandson and Great-grandson, the chaste Wife shall inherit his property. This refers to cases where the Husband has been a divided coparcener-(Dvaitaparishişta, p. 41). This imaplies that the unchaste Widow is not entitled to the Husband's property, -Entire share his entire property, not only that much which might be needed for her maintenance. The Wife meant here is one belonging to the same caste as the Husband-(Dāyanirnaya 4.2–8).

·INHERITANCE- PARTITION 267 This applies to the property of the Husband who had been separated from the coparceners. The term 'Pativratā', 'faithful to her lord', connotes chastity, not merely devotion to the Husband; because such devotion to the Husband could be ascer. tainable only till the death of the Husband.-hich would mean that the woman would not inherit the property at all. What therefore is meant is that if the Widowed Wife remains chaste, and the Husband has left no Son or Grandson or Great-grandson,—she is entitled to receive the property.* *Sakulya'—this term is meant to include all Sapindas, other than the 'Father' and 'Brothers' specially mentioned, also Daughter and Daughter's Sons and so forth. -The term 'Father' includes the Mother also; and the term 'Brother' includes the Sister.—'Bhaga' stands for property–Balambhatļī on Mitāk şarā, p. 728). This text declares the Wife as having the first claim on the Husband's property -(Parăsharamādhara, p. 353). In the absence of primary and secondary Sons, even when the Father and other relations down to the Sakulya are there, the Wife is entitled to receive her Husband's property.--. .. 'Patnī' stands for one who has been duly married in the Brāhma form, or in some such form as entitles her to join her Husband at religious performances; and it excludes all those not so married. This term patni', 'Wife', also indicates the woman's capability to perform the Husband's Shraddha, etc. and hence her title to inherit the property.-The term 'Agnihotra' stands for the Con. secrated Fire with which the Agnihotra Rites are performed.—Pativratā', 'faithful to her lord',-i.e. self-controlled.-- Vārī', 'woman stands for the TTife.- Kupya' -base metals, such as zinc, lead and the like.-'Kavya' is food dedicated to the Pitys, and Purta' for such fees and gifts as accompany works of public utility like the digging of tank and so forth. What is meant is that having received all the property, moveable and immoveable, the Wife shall perform all those acts requiring wealth to which she is entitled; such as Shrāddhas, works of public utility, charities and so forth,---which are conducive to her own and her Husband's spiritual welfare with the half of those preceptors and priests who are allied to the Husband's family.-The Wife's title to the property here set forth refers to cases where the Husband has been a divided member of the family_(Smrtichandrikā, pp. 673-675). The meaning is as follows:-When a man dies Sonless, all his propertyimmoveable and moveable,-goes to his Wife, even when his uterine Brother, paternal uncle, Daughter's Son and others are there; and those who oppose her or take away the property themselves should be punished like thieves.--This entirely rejects the view that Even when the Wife is there, the property shall go to the Father, Brother or other relations of the deceased !-(Dayabhāga, pp. 150-151).- She shall have his monthly Shrāddhas, etc. etc.';„i.e. for the due performance of the Shraddha of her Husband, she shall give adequate wealth to the Uncle or other relations of her Husband.--The term 'pityvya', 'Paternal Uncle', stands for Sapindas in general;—the term "Daughter's Son stands for all descendants of the Husband's Daughter;—“Sister's Son' stands for the descendants of the Husband's Sister ;-and "Maternal Uncle' for the Husband's Mother's family. She shall give the money to these, and not to her own Father and other relations, so long as the Husband's relations are there. She can do so however with the consent of these(Dāyabhāga, p. 173). The person entitled to inherit the Husband's property is the Wife who has been associated with him in the performance of the Shrauta and Smärta rites.- "Kupyam'-zinc, lead and other base metals.-What is meant is that, having inherited all her Husband's property-including the immoveable,—the Wife shall propitiate her Husband's relatives and perform all those acts requiring the expendi. ture of wealth to which she is entitled and which would be conducire to her Husband's and her own spiritual welfare; and while she is doing this, if any man harass her, he should be punished like a thief.—These texts lay down the first claim of the Wife on the property of her Husband who has died childless, having been divided from his family and not ‘reunited'-(Vīramitrodaya, pp. 524-631). The upshot of the whole is that if a man dies childless, the liability of performing his Shrāddha falls on his Wife, and it is she that is entitled to inherit the entire property.--This refers to cases where the Husband has been divided from his coparceners.—Pativratā', chaste.--If the man has died as an undivided member of a joint family, and his Widows have no children, then the head of the family shall give something and also old but untorn clothes to his widowed Daughter-inlaw—(Vibhāgasära 15.2-7).

·268 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI In regard to cases where the Husband has not been a divided member of the joint family, Sharkha has declared as follows-- (1028) To his Brother's Wives and to his Daughters-in-law, who are behaving in the proper manner, the Head of the Family shall give only food and such old clothes as may not be torn.'* Harita [1029] In case the Widow is in her youth and is rough-mannered, Strīdhana should be provided for the maintenance of her life.' This applies to the case of the Wife of a person who had become 'reunited' with the family;- ;-so says Bälarūpa. If the Husband had been an undivided member of the joint family Then he died, his share itself had not come into existence (not having been brought about by division); under the circumstances, what could the Widow inherit? She herself could not be the partaker in the division and hence directly entitled to that share; as there is no authority for this. The present texts themselves cannot serve as the authority for it; as these are explicable as applicable to cases where the property had been divided. It is for this reason that there is the following declaration by Vashistha [1030] 'There is partition of Inheritance among Brothers,-as also for childless Women, till they get a Son.'* Hence when there is a Brother's Widow pregnant with embryo left by her Husband,-and her Brothers-in-law and others proceed to livide the property, a share has to be set aside for the said Widow who is expected to give birth to a Son, till her delivery takes place;-in case she does not bring forth a Son, that share shall be taken by her Brothers-in-law and others.- Such is the explanation provided by the Ratnākara and others. In the Mahābhārata, we read- Childless'-who has left no Son or Grandson or Great-grandsonm(Dāyanirnaya 4.2-7). * If the Brother's Widow is expected to be carrying', a proper share should be allotted for the expected Son; if the child born is a Son, the share goes to him; if it is not a Son, then that share shall be divided among the Widow's Brothers-in-law, and she is to receive food and clothing-(Dāyanirnaya 21.1-5). + This text lays down what is to be done in cases where the Widow is suspected of being unchaste.-'Karkasha' is hard-hearted, ill-tempered, capable of violence, suspected of unchastity-(Smrtichandrikā, p. 680). This refers to cases where the Widow is suspected of immorality--(Paräsharamadhava, p. 359), Hārīta has here prohibited the taking of the entire property by the Widow suspected of misconduct. This same text implies that if the Widow is not suspected of misconduct, she shall receive her Husband's entire property_(Vīramitrodaya, p. 639). The sense is that the Widow shall inherit the Husband's property only if she is chaste,--not if she is unchaste (p. 137).-If she is suspected of unchastity, she shall receive bare maintenance (Vyavahāramayukha, p. 340). Other people have held that this refers to the Wife of the freunited 'coparcener. It has been already pointed out that the Widow of a childless undivided member of a joint family has no share in the property; and in the Mahābhārata it has been declared that that the only interest that the Wife has in her Husband's property is that she can enjoy it'; and again, that-'Women shall not make any disposal of the Husbands' property '; where disposal' stands for freely giving away, selling and so forth-(Vibhāgcsāra 15.2–9). * See above, where this text has been quoted as Text No. 904 and commented upon.

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 269 (1031] "The only interest that women have in their Husbands' property is that they can enjoy it; Women shall, in no case, dispose of the property of the Husbands.' ‘Dispose of-i.e. give away or sell and so forth at their will. * (B) "When the Wife is not there, the property goes to the Daughter', as declared by Vişņu quoted above. [Vide Text No. 1024.] Vārada also [1032] 'In the absence of the Son, the Daughter [shall inherit the property); since both are equally offsprings; the Son and the Daughter both help to propagate the line of the Father.'t So also Manu (9.130) [1033] 'The Son is as one's own Self; and the Daughter is equal to the Son; so long as she is there, as the Father's own Self, how can any one else take the property ?'1 * The enjoyment permitted should not be in the form of wearing fine clothes and the like; it is only the maintaining of the body for the spiritual welfare of the Husband, that is meant-Viramitrodaya, p. 628). The making of such gifts also is sanctioned as are made in connection with Shrāddhas offered to the Husband-(Dāyabhāga, p. 173). 'Enjoyment'-i.e. she shall spend only what is needed for her maintenance (Dāyanirnaya 5.2-6). † If the IT ife is not there, those Daughters shall inherit the property who belong to the same caste as the Father-(Aparārka, p. 743). Here Vārada declares the right of the Daughter, in the absence of the Wife- (Vivādaratnākara, p. 591). Both help to propagate the line, which is conducive to the Father's welfare. What is meant is that, so far as the help rendered to the Grandfather is concerned, the Son's Son and the Daughter's Son are equal. This quality does not extend to the paying of the Grandfather's debts, as that devolves only upon the Son and the Son's Son (Smrtichandrikā, p. 683). The offspring' meant here is one who offers the funeral cake; an offspring that does not offer the funeral cake, according no help, is as good as the offspring of another person;—and it is the Daughter's Son who offers the cake, not the Son of the Daughter's Son; nor the Daughter's Daughter. Thus then, that Daughter is entitled to inherit the Father's property who has a Son, or who expects to have a Son. One who is barren or a Widow or a Mother of Daughters alone, would not be 80 entitled.-We must accept this view put forward by Dākşita (p. 175). In the compound' putrābhāvē', the term putra'stands for the Son and the Wife-(Dāyabhāga, p. 1013). Balambhaťțī on Mitākşarā (p. 767) also declares that it is the Daughter with a Son that inherits the Father's property. The Son and the Daughter both serve to propagate the Father's line, through their Sons; hence, the Daughter is as much entitled to inherit the property as the Son. Though the Son's Son and the Daughter's Son are not exactly alike in form, yet the purpose that they serve for their Grandfather is the same-(Vīramitrodaya, p. 657). Here we find it laid down that the property goes to the Daughter (Vivādachandra 25.2-2). $ In connection with the Appointed Daughter, it has been said that the Father shall make the declaration-The Son that born of her shall be mine, and a man's Son inherits his property; so that, at the time that the Father dies, if the Daughter has got no son, it might seem that she would not inherit his property. It is in view of this that the present text lays down that she shall inherit it. --While the Father's own self is there, in the shape of the Daughter, or so long as the Daughter is there in her own real character of having been 'appointed to provide a Son for her Father.-Though the text uses the generic term 'Daughter', it is clear from the context that it is the appointed Daughter that is meant-(Medhätithi). The Appointed Daughter, none else, shall inherit the property of the Sonless deceased-(Sarvajñanārāyana).

·270 VIVĀDACHINTĀMANI Brhaspati (25.56) [1034] "The Daughter, like the Son, springs from each limb of the man; how then should any other person inherit her Father's property ?' What sort of a Daughter is entitled to inherit the Father's property is explained by the same authority in the following text- [1035] 'A Daughter of the same caste, and married to a man of the same caste, gentle and devoted to service, shall inherit her Sonless Father's property,--whether she has been appointed or not-appointed'-(Byhaspati 25.57).* $ The Son takes the place of the Father himself;--the Daughter is equal to the Son;-hence so long as the Appointed Daughter, who is the very self of the Father, is there, how can any one else inherit the property of the deceased Sonless Father?- (Kullūka). The Appointed Daughter is entitled to the property of her Sonless Father; and her Son takes the place of the man's Son's Son'.-'Any one else'-an Agnate- (Rāghavānanda). The Daughter meant here is the Appointed Daughter-(Nandana). Ātmani - equal to the Son, who is equal to the man's own self.-When the deceased has left no Son or Widow, his property, goes to his Daughter-(p: 683). The Father of the deceased cannot come before the latter's Daughter; because though his Father may be more helpful to him spiritually, yet his Daughter is more nearly related to him physically_(Smrtichandrīkā, p. 684). In the absence of the Wife, the Daughters inherit the property of the man who, being divided and not reunited, has died Sonless—(Paramitrodaya, p. 656). In the absence of the Wife, the living Daughter shall receive the property (Vivādaratnākara, p. 591). In the absence of the Wife, the Daughter shall inherit the property. If there are more Daughters than one, they shall divide the property among themselves (Vyavahāramayukha, p. 141). **Sadyshi-belonging to the same caste as the Father. This implies that the Daughter belonging to a different caste is not entitled to inherit the Father's property.'Krtă - appointed. The Appointed Daughter is mentioned only by way of an example; a man having an Appointed Daughter cannot be called "Sonless”; hence the present text could not be taken as laying down the Appointed Daughter's title to inheritance (Aparārka, pp. 743-744). 'Sadyshi-of the same caste as Father. The first four qualifications mentioned here refer to the inheritance of Daughters after the death of the Wife of the deceased What is meant is as follows:--If the Father has left no Body-born Son, both kinds of Appointed Daughter shall get the property before (i.e..in preference to) the Wife of the deceased; but the ordinary Daughter, endowed with the said four qualities, inherits it only after the Wife. Thus after the Wife, if there are several Daughters - some unsettled and some unmarried,-it is the unmarried Daughter that inherits the property; as it is she who had to be maintained by the Father. In case there is no unmarried Daughter, the property goes to that Daughter who is unsettled (poor), because even though her maintenance is the duty of her Husband, she remains unsettled by reason of her Husband's inability to maintain her.--If there is no unsettled Daughter, the property goes to the settled Daughter. If there is no settled Daughter, it goes to the Daughter's Son-(Smrtichandrikā, p. 687). Sadyshi'-of the same caste as the Father ; -married to a man of equal caste';- this has been added with a view to exclude the Daughter married to a man belonging to a higher or lower caste; as the Son of such a Daughter is not entitled to offer Shraddha to his Mother's Father; while the Daughter married to one of the caste as her Father benefits the Father through her Son.—As for the Son of the Appointed Daughter, he is as helpful to the Father as the latter's Son, and hence his title to inheritance is equal to that of the Son. As for the Daughter other than the Appointed one, the benefit conferred by her upon her Father is indirect, through her Son; hence her title comes in only after that of the Son and the Wife.—The qualification devoted to the service of her Husband' indicates that she should not be a Widow, which implies that she should be capable of bearing Sons. -The addition of so many qualifications implies that the Daughter is not entitled to inherit ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 271 According to the declaration of Parāshara to the effect that [1036] 'If a man dies childless, his unmarried Daughter should take his property, -and if there is no such Daughter, then the married Daughter, The inheritance should be in this order.Such is the opinion of Balarūpa.' * It would not be right to assert that—all this is applicable to the Appointed Daughter, because of the text (1035) using the words appointed or unappointed'.-Because Janu has declared that even where the deceased has left a Son, the Appointed Daughter is entitled to a share equal to that of Son's. [So that a man who has an Appointed Daughter cannot be regarded as Sonless.] (C) In the absence of the Daughter, the property goes to the Mother according to the declaration by t'işņu (Text No. 1024). Says Brhaspati (25.63)- [1037] ‘ll'hen her son has died without leaving a Wife or Daughter, the Mother should be regarded as entitled to his property;-mor his Brother with her consent.' † With her consent'-i.e. with the Mother's consent. The term Jlothers here includes the Father also; hence the term 'tadanujñayā' means ' with the consent of the Father and the Mother'; such is the view of the Pārijāta. 6 3 by virtue of being a Daughter; she does so by virtue of her being possessed of the said qualifications (Dāyabhāga, p. 177). Sadrshi'-of the same caste as the Father.-— 'Sadyshēna'-to one belonging to the same caste as herself. This is meant to exclude the connection with higher or lower castes; because the Sons born of such connection are precluded from offering Shraddha to the Maternal Grandfather.-Such is the view of Jimūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga).—This however cannot be accepted, because the term 'ūdhā', 'married', itself serves to exclude the connection of a lower caste; because a girl wedded to a man of a lower caste cannot be regarded as “married'. Hence, the qualification can be taken only as excluding the higher caste. This lays down what sort of a Daughter is entitled to inherit the Father's property-Dvaitaparishişta, p. 41). This text points out what sort of unmarried Daughter inherits the property of her Sonless Father.-All this does not refer to the case of the Appointed Daughter. Because 'she is equal to the Son', and as such, entitled to inherit the Father's pro. perty directly; so that it would be only in her absence that the property could go to the Mother-(Vibhāgasāra, 16.1-4). The law on this point is thus summed up in Dāyanirnaya (6.1-8):-Among Daughters, first comes the unmarried Daughter, who possesses an inherent right over her Father's property;—then comes the married Daughter who has no Son;- then the Daughter who has, or expects, a Son;-the property cannot go to the Husband or other relatives of the Daughter.-According to Diksita, it is only the Daughter having or expecting a Son who is entitled to the inheritance, not the childless, widowed or barren Daughter; because there is no chance of the Father receiving offerings through the latter Daughters.—But according to Mishra, these latter also are entitled to the inheritance when there is no Daughter with a Son. * Where the deceased has left one married and one unmarried Daughter, the property shall go to the latter (Smrtitattua I, p. 191). † In the absence of the Father, the Mother, or with her consent, the Brother shall inherit the property--(Aparārka, p. 745). "Tadanujñaya---with the Mother's consent (Pivādaratnākara, p. 591). This is in accordance with Yäjñavalkya's text-'Paini duhitaraḥ, etc. etc.' (Text No. 1044 below)-(Vibhāgasära, 16.1-6). The term 'bhārya', Wife', must include the Daughter, the Daughter's Son, and the Father, who come before the Mother in the order of succession. Hence the meaning is that when one has died without leaving a Son or Wife or Daughter or Daughter's Son or Father, etc. etc.—(Smrtichandrikā, pp. 691-692). This rule should be taken as applying to cases where the deceased has left no son, Wife, Daughter, Daughter's Son, or Father—(Dāyabhāga, p. 186).

·272 VIVĀDACHINTĀMANI Brhaspati - [1038] "Just as the Daughter is entitled to inherit her Father's property even while his Bandhus are there,—so also is her Son entitled to the property of his Mother and Maternal Grandfather.'* Danu (9.132)— [1039] 'The Daughter's Son shall inherit the entire property of the Sonless Father; he shall also offer two cakes one to his own Father and another to his Mother's Father.' Both these texts (1038 and 1039) should be taken as applicable to cases where the Son, etc. are not there,-because of the order of succession laid down by Yājňavalkya (No. 1045 below). p. 561). * This is applicable to the case of Appointed Daughters (Vivādaratnākara, The Daughter is entitled to the Father's property, by virtue of the cake that her Son offers to her Father; and by virtue of that same cake-offering the Daughter's Son himself is the heir to the property of his Maternal Grandfather.-—This cannot refer to the Son of the Appointed Daughter—(Dāyabhāga, p. 180; Vīramitrodaya, p. 662; also Dāyanirnaya 6.2-10). + That the Son of the Appointed Daughter shall inherit the property of her Father having been already laid down in the preceding text (Manu 9.131), the present text has been explained by some people as laying the necessity of his offering the two cakes to the two persons; according to these people the reading in place of'pitur-harēt' is 'hared-yadi', the meaning being—'In case the Son of the Appointed Daughter inherits the property ... he shall offer two cakes. According to this view, the offering of the two cakes would be incumbent only in the event of the man inheriting the entire property; so that he need not offer the cakes in the event of his receiving only an equal share', as laid down in Manu 9.134.- This explanation however cannot be right; what is actually meant is that he shall inherit the property of the Sonless Father Aputrasya pitur-harēt being the generally accepted reading. The term 'Father' here stands for the Progenitor, and not for the Maternal Grandfather; hence what is meant is—'In case the Husband of the Appointed Daughter has no other Son from any other Wife, except the one of the Appointed Daughter, then this same Son shall be the Son and heir of his own Father as also that of his Mother's Father; if however the Father has other sons from other Wives, then the Son of the Appointed Daughter shall neither inherit the property of, nor offer the cake to, that Father (Progenitor). The relation of 'progeny and progenitor' is different from that of Father and Son'; even though the Father of the Ksētraja Son, for instance, is not his ‘Progenitor', yet the Son is regarded as his Son.-The conclusion, therefore, should be as follows:-(a) In a case where the Husband of the Appointed Daughter has no other Sons, the Son of that Appointed Daughter shall inherit his entire property and shall also offer the Cake to him as well as to his Mother's Father;-1) if however, the said Father has other Sons from other Wives, then the Son of the Appointed Daughter shall not offer the Cake to him; he shall offer to his Mother's Father only.-The same principle applies to the case of the Maternal Grandfather also; i.e. the Son of the Appointed Daughter shall offer the cake to him if he inherits his property. In fact the injunction that 'He shall inherit the property and offer the cake does not necessarily imply that there should be no offering if he does not inherit the property--(Medhātithi). The Son of the Appointed Daughter inherits the property, not only of his Mother's Father, but also that of his own Father (Progenitor), his Mother's Husband, --if the latter has no other Son. The term 'Daughter's Son' here stands for the Son of the Appointed Daughter; he shall inherit the property of his Progenitor, as it was from his seed that he was born, and as such is more nearly Agnate to him than any other Agnate. Where, in regard to the Appointed Daughter, the stipulation has been made by her Father that the Son born of her shall be my Son', this stipulation does not mean that the Son cannot serve as the Son of the Progenitor; all that the stipulation means is that he would be a 'Son' to the girl's Father. In case he inherits his own Father's (Progenitor's) property, he shall offer the Unitary ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 273 Manu (9.217) himself has also declared as follos- [1040] 'The Mother shall inherit the property of her childless Son; if the Mother has also died, then the Father's Jother shall receive the property.' That is, when the deceased has no Daughter, his property should go to his Mother. What is meant is that the Father's Jother receives the property if the deceased has left no Sakulya (Agnate) at all. That this must be so is due to the fact that it has been definitely laid down that in the absence of the Mother, the property goes to the Father, then to the Bruther and so on. Shraddhr to that Father, and the Parrana Shräldha to his Mother's Father and the Father and Grandfather of this latter-(Sarvajännārāyana). The term "Dauhitra' here must be the Son of the Appointed Daughter; in the preceding sentence he has been declared to be entitled to receive the entire prr,perty of his Mother's Father; in the first sentence of the present text, he is derlared to be the inheritor of the property of his Father (Progenitor); and the second sentence prescribes his liability to offer the Shraddha to both. The meaning thus is that the Son of the Appointed Daughter,-who is the Son of his Mother's Father,--shall receive the entire property of his own Father (Progenitor), if this latter has no other Son; and he shall also offer two cakes, cine to his Progenitor and another to his other's Father. The 'offering of the cake stands for the perforinance of the entire Shraddha. The purpose served by the present text is to set aside the notion that the Son of the Appointed Daughter may have regarding his having nothing to do with the inheriting of the property of, and offering the Shraddha to, his Progenitor--(Kullūka). Even though he is the Appointed Daughter's Son, he shall inherit the property of his Progenitor, if the latter has no other Son; and he shall offer the cake to the Progenitor and also to his own Maternal Grandfather--( Vandana). In this text Vanu has declared the title of all Daughter's Sons in general, not that of the Son of the Appointed Daughter only to the Maternal Grandfather's property.-The term 'pituḥ, 'of the Father', should be understood here in the sense of the Mother's Father; that is why the text actually mentions the Mother's Father' in the next sentence.- Or the construction may be "Just as he inherits the entire property of his Father, so he inherits the property of his Mother's Father also; because he serves the purposes of a Son for both '. - This is made clear in the second line. Some people place the title of the Daughter's Son above that of the Wife and the Daughter; but that cannot be accepted; as being contrary to the order prescribed by Yājñavalkya-(Vēramitrodaya, p. 662). What is said here is in accordance with the order of succession laid down in Yājñavalkya's textm(Vibhāgasāra 16.1-6). 'Pituh', 'Father', -stands for the Mother's Father-(Dayanirnaya 6.2-9). * In the absence of the Wife, the Daughter and the Daughter's Son, the property of the deceased goes to his Mother. The second sentence lays down only & sort of favour that is to be conferred upon the Father's Mother, if the Father and Mother are dead and there are no Brothers or Nephews there (Sarvajñanārāyana). The Mother shall take the property of her childless Son. Under 9.185, Alanu has declared that the Father is to inherit the property of his Sonless Son; and in the present text it is the Mother that is mentioned as so entitled; this is in accordance with Yājñavalkya's text, where the compound word 'pitorau' has been expounded in a way by which the Mother comes before the Father.-Vişnu also speaks of the property of a Sonless man going to the Wife, then to the Daughter, then to the Parents. In view of all this, the property should be divided between the Father and Mother. In case the Mother is dead, it shall go to the Father's Mother; provided, the Wife, the Father, the Brother and Nephews are not there(Kulūka). If a man dies childless, bis property goes to his Mother, because by reason of her having kept him in his womb and brought him up, she is superior to all other relatives. On the death of the Mother, the Father's Mother shall take the property. --Yājñavalkya speaks of the Father taking the property, while Vişnu also speaks of the property of the Sonless man going to the Wife, then to the Mother, then to the Father. In view of these conflicting texts the right course would be for the Father and the Mother to divide the property between themselves. Such is the opinion of Kullūka. The correct view, however, is that when all the three-Wife, Mother and Father-are alive, they shall all inherit the property.-- Vrttāyām'- on her dying-(Rāghavānanda). 18 ·274 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI (D) When the Mother is not alive, the property goes to the Father, according to the declaration of Vişnu (Text No. 1024). To this same effect says Manu (9.185) also Childless'-i.e. one who has left no Son or Grandson or Wife or Daughter- (Nandana). If a man dies childless, his Wife, Daughter or Mother shall inherit his property, even when the Father is alive-(Rāmachandra). Here Manu has asserted the Mother's title to inherit the property (Mitākşarā, p. 729).--Dhārēslivara has taken this text to mean that—'Even when the Father is there, if the Mother dies, the property goes to the Father's Mother, and not to the Father; because if the property went to the Father, there would be a possibility of its going to such of his Sons as belong to other castes; while if it went to the Father's Mother, it would go to only persons of the same caste':--This is not acceptable to our rerered teacher; because Sons belonging to different castes have also been declared to be entitled to inheritance, in such texts as Yājñavalkya 2.125—(Ibid., p. 776). In the absence of Brother's Sons, the property goes to the Father's Dother, Sapindas and Samānodakas. Among these, the Father's Mother comes first. The present text would mean that the claim of the Father's Mother comes first after the Mother's; if that were so, then there would be no point in the Father, Brother and Brother's Sons being mentioned in that definite order; i.e. between the Mother and the Father's Mother. For this reason we have to take the statement the Father's Mother shall receive the property' only as declaring the mere title of the Father's Mother to inheritance without any reference to her exact position in the order of inheritance; so that the Father's Mother would come in only in the absence of the Brother's Sons. In this manner the two texts would be reconciled (Jitākṣarā, p. 779). Childless --i.e. one who has left no son or Wife or Daughter. The title of the Father's Mother should be understood to come in only in the absence of the Father, Brother and other Sapindas; because it is an established law that after the Mother's title comes the title of the Father and the rest(Vivādaratnākara, p. 591). It is only Yājižavalkya who has avowedly declared the precise order of inheritance; the other texts declare only the title of particular relatives, without reference to their exact position in the order of precedence;—such is the opinion of some people. But this view cannot be accepted; the real explanation is that the term "childless' stands for 'one who has left no Son or Wife or Daughter's Son'- (Smrtichandrikā, p. 691). In the absence of the Daughter's Son, the property goes to the Father, not to the Mother; nor to the Father and Mother jointly; because these latter views would be contrary to Vişnu's clear declaration.--As regards the present text of Manu, this must be taken as referring to cases where all the persons ending with the Father-are dead. It is reasonable also that after the Daughter's Son's, and the Mother's, the title of the Father should come in. In Yājñavalkya's text also, where the parents are mentioned by the common term 'pitarau', the order would appear to be first the Father, then the Mother; because the Father is directly denoted by the basic noun 'pity' itself, while the Mother is only indicated by the Dual Ending (Dāyabhāga, pp. 185-186).--'If the Mother is dead',-i.e. along with all her direct descendants. The meaning is that, on the death of the Mother, the Father's Mother also may inherit the property,--not to say of those beginning with the Brother and ending with the Father's Father; the Brother and the others being indicated by the particles'api cha'. The sense of the text is this—After the direct descendants of the deceased, comes the title of the Parents, before that of the Parents' descendants; similarly, the title of the Father's Father and Father's Mother comes before that of the descendants of these latter'-(Dayabhāga, p. 188). The Mother inherits the property of her Sonless Son; when the Mother is not alive, his Father's Mother receives it-(Vibhāgasāra 16.1-7). Here we have a declaration of the title of the Mother and the Father's Mother to the property of the Sonless deceased-(p. 632).--Some texts declare the Father's title as coming before the Mother's, while others hold that the Mother comes before the Father. This point must remain undecided-(Vīramitrodaya, p. 667). Just as in the absence of the Father, the property goes to the Mother, 80, in the absence of the Father's Father, it goes to the Father's Mother-(Smrtitattva II, p. 195). 18B ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 275 [1041] ‘If a man dies Sonless, his property shall be taken by his Father; or by his Brothers.'* (E) The title of the Brother rests upon the declaration of t'işnu (Text No. 1024). In this connection Gautama says- (1042] 'Of dead persons, the properts goes to the eldest- That is, the eldest Brother.t Ianu (9.187) [1043] “The property shall always devolve upon him who is the nearest to the deceased Sapinda.' * The Father shall take the property of that Son of his who had not been separated from him.--'Or Brothers'--with the Father's consent. In case the deceased Son had been divided, then the property shall go to his Widow, and in her absence to his Daughter and the rest mentioned by Yajñarnikya--(Sarcajñanūráyarn). If the deceased has left none of the principal kinds of Sons, nor a Wife or Daughter, his property shall be taken by his Father; and by the dead man's Brothers, only if their Mother is not alive-(Kullūka). The term Father' stands for the Wife, Daughter, Mother and Father- (Rāghavānanda). Sonless-who has left none of the various kinds of Sons.-'Or Brothers'-.e. uterine Brothers—Vandana). The literal meaning of the words is quite clear; not so clear is the real purport which has been made clear by the Sangrahakāra in the following words_"If a man possessed of some property dies without any kind of issue, then his property is to be taken by his Father and others mentioned in the text'. It is implied, however, that the Father shall take the property in the absence,-not only of the several kinds of Sons, but of the Wife also (pp. 672-673).-- Aputrasya'-i.e. one who has left no Son or Wife or Daughter or Daughter's Son—(Sirtichandrikā, p. 691). This shows that the property of the Sonless man goes to the Father or to the Brother-(p. 729).- This text does not lay down the order of precedence; it only asserts the right of the Father and the Brother to inherit the property in question (p. 758).-In the absence of the Father, the property goes to the Brothers- Mitākṣarā, p. 775). 'Aputrasya'-one who has not left any kind of Son, primary or secondary- (Vivādaratnākara, p. 592). The words of Manu are not meant to lay down any order of precedence- (Parāsharamadhava, p. 356). † Where several Brothers have become separated, and have not become freunited', if, from among them, some one dies childless, his share goes to the eldest among them. This also should be taken as referring to cases where the Wife, (the Daughter), the Mother, and the Father are not living-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 592). Among Sapindas, the property should go to each in the order of his proximity of relationship to the deceased. If the Father is not living, it goes to the Father's Father; failing this latter, to his Father,-i.e. the Great-grandfather. The Brother and the Brother's Sons are nearer to one than the Father's Father. The order of succession should be Father, Brother, Brother's Son, Father's Father, and so on, then the samānodaka, the Sagotra, the Maternal Uncle, other Bandhus;- the succeeding one getting the property in the absence of the preceding.-Similarly, on the death of the Father's Father, his property goes to his own Son, not to his Grandson-(Sarvajñanarayana). Among Sapindas, one whose relationship is closer,-be it male or female receives the property of the deceased. In the absence of all the thirteen kinds of Sons, the property goes to the Wife ... The declaration that 'the Wife shall receive maintenance only applies to cases where she is unchaste. The title of the Wife to inheritance has been denied by Medhātithi; but that is wrong; such title is supported by Brhaspati. ... In the absence of the Wife, comes the Appointed Daughter; then the Father and the Mother; then the uterine Brother; the uterine Brother's Sons; then the Father's Mother, and so on, the other Sapindas. In the absence of all the descendants of one's Grandfather, the property shall go to the ·276 VITĀDACHINTAMANI A pastamba- [1047] 'The nearmost Sapinda; in the absence of Sapindas, the Teacher; in the absence of the Teacher, the Pupil." Yājñavalkya (2.136-137). [1045] "If a man dies without a Son, his property shall be inherited by the following persons, the following one receiving it only in the absence of the preceding; such is the Law for all castes.-(1) Wife, (2) Daughters, (3) Parents, (4) Brothers, (5) their Sons, (6) Sagotra, (7) Bandhu, (8) Disciple, (9) Fellow-students.' In regard to the term 'pitaran' (Parents), when the question arises regarding the order of precedence between the two parents, it is the Mother that comes first, then the Father; because the present text has the same source as the text of Vişnu (Text No. 1024 above) [where the Mother has been placed before the Father].- Tatsutaħ', ('their Son')-the Son of the Brother. Without a Son-i.e. without a Son, Grandson or Greatgrandson. descendants of the Great-grandfather; failing all these, it goes to the Samānodaka, then to the Teacher,--then to the Disciple (Kullūka). The nearmost Sapinda shall receive the property-(Nandana). Anantarah'-nearly related. Dhărēshvara has explained this text as follows: The starting point here is the Father.- Question the nearest' to the Father is the Father's Father as well as the Father's Son; when therefore both these are present, which of them shall have the precedence ?-Answer-The Father's Son shall have the precedence;-why?- because the Father's Father has not been mentioned as normally inheriting one's property,-in such texts as 'the property of the Sonless man shall be taken by the Father or the Brothers'. Thus the implication of the present text is that if there are no descendants of the Father of the deceased, the descendants of the Father's Father come in; and in the absence of the latter, the descendants of the Greatgrandfather, and so on-Viramitrodaya, p. 669). The 'nearness of the Sapinda has been defined by Manu himself in 9.186—- (Aparārka, p. 744). This 'nearness' is the determining factor, not only among Sapindas, but also among Samanodakows and others (Mitāksarā, p. 774). Among Brothers, the uterine ones are the first to come in, as the relationship of the Step-brothers is a step further removed by the intervention of a different Mother-(Mitāksarā, p. 777). Anantaraḥ'-near-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 592). Nearness of relationship to the deceased is the determining factor in the title to inheritance (Vyavahāramayukha, p. 161). The Sapinda and others shall inherit the property in the order of the proximity of their relationship to the deceased—(Parāsharamadhava, p. 364). 'Sapindāt' among the Sapindas of the deceased each one shall inherit the property in the order of the nearness of his relationship to the deceased-(Smrtitattva II, p. 195). * What is meant is that when even Bandhus (Cognates) are not there, the property goes to the Teacher of the deceased; when even the Teacher is not there, then it goes to the pupil of the deceased-(Mitākṣarā, p. 789). + Wife'--the Wife meant here is one who has conceived, as declared by Vashistha (vide Text No. 904), who has clearly indicated that such Wives alone are to inherit as are pregnant.Daughters'-ie. the Appointed Daughter. In case there is expectation of a Son being born, the Daughter shall inherit only when no Son is born. Throughout the text the particle 'ēva' has a restrictive force. Parents' Mother and Father; though the rights of the two are joint, yet the fact that they have been mentioned in a copulative compound shows that each of them is entitled to inherit. But even though they have been mentioned in a copulative compound, yet the Mother comes arst; this has been clearly asserted by Manu (vide Text No. 1040 above).-But there is also the other text (Manu, Text No. 1041 above) which asserts the right of the Father'.—This latter text is meant for cases ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION men. where the Mother is not alive. As for Shankha's text declaring that 'the property of a childless man goes to his Brothers, this also shruld be taken as applying to cases where the Wife, Daughter and the rest are not there.-Bhratarastathā”;-the particle tathā indicates the various kinds of Broti ers; so that the Half-brother and the rest become included.—Gotrajas'-in the following order:- Sapinda, (2) Samānodaka, (3) those descended from a common ancestor, and (+) those descended from a common ķşi.-_Bandhu'-the Maternal Uncle and rther Cognates. -The Acharya', Teacher, also has got to be included, by reason of his having been euologised as 'Father':- Disciple --the Bor Thom one has initiated. Fellows. students'--those who have been initiated by the same Ichāryn.--Among all these, the succeeding ones are entitled to inherit the property only in the absence of the preceding ones. -(Trshvarūpr). 4 putrasya' une who has no son, primary or secondary, living.--"Sraryātrisya' who is dead.— Dhanabhāk'-entitled to inherit the property. Among the Wife and the rest mentioned in a definite order, each succeeding one is entitled to receive the property only in the absence of the preceding ones. This Lair applies to all Some people have taken the term Daughters' as standing fisr the Appointed Daughter.—But this cannot be right; because a man who has got an Appointed Daughter cannot be called "Sonless ', -the Appointed Daughter having been declared to be a kind of Son'.-Pitarau' (Parents)-Iother and Father; these inherit the property if the deceased has left no Wife or Daughters.-- In the absence of the Parents, come the Brothers,-i.e. the uterine Brothers, these being the nearmost.- In the absence of Brothers, 'Brother's Sons'. In the absence of these latter, Sagotras. Among Sagotras, the nearmost comes first. - In the absence of Sagotras, come the Bardhus,- i.e. the Father's Sister, the Mother's Sister, the Son of the Maternal Uncle and so forth. In the absence of Bandhus, the Disciple' -one whom one has initiated and taught the Veda._In his absence, the Felloustudent--one having the same Achārya. On this text, some people have expressed the following opinion :-'A woman is entitled to perform acts of piety, such as charity and the like, only along with her Husband; as for pleasures, she is not to indulge in them, when a Widow; and piety and pleasure are the only two purposes served by wealth; so that, so long as the Father and other relatives are there to use the wealth for those purposes, the Widow cannot receive the property; she is to receive just enough for her maintenance; and this is all that is meant when the Wife is spoken of as entitled to inherit the property. Similarly when the Daughter is spoken of as inheriting the property, it refers to cases where the property left by the deceased is just enough for the Daughter's marriage. So that if the property left is more than what would be needed for the fife's maintenance and the Daughter's marriage, then,-even though the Wife and the Daughter be there, the property goes to the Father and other Sapindas.'-This, however, cannot be right. On the death of the owner of the property, the ownership of the Ilife and the Daughter is already there; it has not got to be brought into existence. In fact, the ownership of the Wife over the Husband's property has been brought about by the Marriage-rite itself; and the Daughter's ownership over the Father's property has been born with herself. Hence so long as the Wife and the Daughter are there, no text can set aside their inherent rights of ownership and create those of the Father and other Sapindas. In case the Wife and the Daughter are not there, the rights of these other persons would be brought about without setting aside the rights of any one else. Hence what is meant by the present text is that the Father and the rest are entitled to inherit the property only in the absence of the life and Daughters. Nor are women precluded from such pious acts as Charity and the like, which do not require the use of Vedic Mantras or of the Consecrated Fires- (Aparārka). Here we have the order of precedence among the several classes of Heirs', on the failure of Sons. One who has not left any of the twelve kinds of Sons is called 'Sonless '; when such a person has 'gone to heaven', - i.e. to a region other than the Earth,--the person entitled to inherit his property is each succeeding one in the absence of the preceding ones, among those mentioned in the list consisting of the 'Wife' and the rest.—'This is the Law for all castes',-i.e. (a) those born in the natural order of 'mixed castes', (6) those born in the inverse order of 'mixed castes', and (c) those belonging to the primary castes, Brāhmaṇa and the rest. (I) First of all, the Wife is the person entitled to inherit the property. The "Wife' meant here is the duly married Wife,--the derivation of the word "patnī' connoting association at sacrificial performance (which can apply to the duly married Wife only). The Singular Number in 'Wife' is in reference to the caste; so that if the deceased has left several Widows, belonging to divided castes, they are to divide ·TS VITĀDACHIXTĀJANI tir ?"; rty am themselves in accordance with the shares prescribed for the Tifa fa il caste...... There are several texts declaring this first claim of the 11.4: -2.11 ac Texts Yo. 1104, 10127, and others. On the other hand there are others ...kt In! ( 19.217. 183, Värila. Kitayann and Shankha, declare the first ... tipsf the Father or Brother, or the Jother and so forth. 1.. f all these natirting texts. Thiirishvara has deduced the conclusion 12+ the rules that the life shall inherit the property refers to the Widow of the --Ieratul Brother who is desirous of being appointed' to bear a child to her € pri Hushand. Direktri~ 'What is there to indicate that the rule applies to such of W?«: ---Thn (12.89* is that in view of the texts declaring that the Father shall 1:mrit the property of liis Sunless Son', it is necessary to qualify the rule laying cloni. th. title of tije Wife; and we cannot find any other qualification save the said lade for territorio not to bear a child; also because of Gautama's declaration to the ritert that 'the persons related through the Pinda and the Gotra shall inherit the Irrty of the childless person, or his Widow shall inherit his property if she desires ir!!. Uwl 9.146; has also declared that when the separated Brother dies is cher has a right over his property only through her child, not otherwise. I: rt garu Nimfurtul Brothers also, Vashistha forbids ‘appointment' sought ply with a view to inheriting property; which also shows that the Wife is entitled tu inherit property only through appointment'. In cases where there is no 'appointment, the idow is entitled to maintenance only; as declared by Nārada and Mājravalkya (2.142).-Further, the sole purpose served by the property of Twiceboru persons is the performance of sacrifices; and women are not entitled to such perfumuance; consequently, it is not right that they should inherit property on their own account. The abure view of Dharēsheara is not right. In the text itself there is nothing tis:dicate any reference to the 'appointment' of the Widow; nor does the context war any relation to it.--Then again, is it the appointment' or the child born of the 'apprintinent' that makes the Widow entitled to the inheritance ?-If it is mere 'appointment' that entitles her, then she should be entitled to it even though she may not bear any child. If, on the other hand, it is the Son born that entitles her to inheritance, then, in that case, that Son himself would inherit the property as the Kshetraja Son of the deceased, and there would be no point in mentioning the Wife as the 'heir'.—Some people have held the view that the connection of the woman with property can only be either through her Husband or through her Son.- But this cannot be right: as it would be contrary to many direct texts—e.g. Manu 19.194) where the six kinds of Strīdhana, Woman's Property, have been set forth. Further, the present text has been put up to meet cases where all kinds of 'Son' including the Kshetrajn) are non-existent.-As regards Vashistha's text which has lieen cited in support of the view that it is only the appointed' Widow that is kititler to inherit property:-what is meant by that text is that the Widow is to Initive the property of the childless Husband if she be desirous of obtaining children, but that the property goes to the Sapindas and Sagotras or to the Widow; so that the Wife mar either seek to obtain a child by 'appointment' or may remain self-controlled and chaste; so that the begetting of the child is only an optional course of con. duct open to her. Further, it is only right that only the chaste Widow should inherit the property, not the one who has undergone 'appointment' and is object of disrespect among people; specially as the practice of appointment' has been censured by Unnu (9.64).---From Vārada's text also (13.24 and 26), it is clear that childless Wives of reunited' coparceners are entitled to maintenance only... As regards the argument that the wealth of twice-born men is meant for sacrifices which women cannot perform,-if all property were meant for sacrificial performance, then there would be no possibility of the performance of any acts of charity, etc. which would go against the express declarations of Manu (2.96), Yājñavalkya (1.115) and others. As regards the argument that women should never be independent, she may nnt be independent; but why should that be inconsistant with her inheriting property? The texts of Katyāyana and Nārada which declare that mere livelihood should be provided for women, clearly refer to 'kept women'; as the word used is always "yoșit', 'woman' not 'patni Wife'. In the present text however, we have the word patni', which stands for the married Wife; so that there would be no inconsistency or impropriety in a chaste and legally married Wife inheriting property. Thus the clear meaning of the text comes to be that when a divided coparcener, who has not been 'reunited', dies without a Son, his property should first of all go to his Wife. This also disposes of the view of Shrikara and others that the present text refers to cases where the property concerned is not large. In fact, in 2.115 and 123, ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 279 Vājñavalkya has himself declared the life to be entitled to a share equal to that of the Sons-eren in the presence of Body-born Sons. Under the circumstances it must be sheer illusion to hold that the Widow of the Sonless man should not receive anything more than mere inaintenance. Vor can it be right to hold that--- if the property is a large one the Wife shall receive only maintenance, while when it is small she shall receive a share equal to that of the Son':-Such an explanation would be a diversity in the nile; the same injunction being taken to meant one thing in one case, and a totally different thing in another case. Another view that has been held is as follows:- The generally accepted law being that the Widow is to get just enough to maintain her,-if a Sonless man dies leaving a large property, his Widow shall receive just her maintenance, and the bulk of the property shall go to the Brothers of the deceased; but in cases where the property left is just enough to maintain the Widow,-for even less,--then the whole of it shall go to the Widow. This is what is laid down in the present text'. This explanation also our Teacher [l'ishrarūpsays the Bälnmbhatta] does not accept. As a matter of fact, Janu's text speaking of the Father or the Brothers taking the property of the Sonless man lays down only an alternative option; it does not lay down an order of precedence, whereby the Father would have the first claim, then the Brothers; it only asserts that the Father and the Brothers are entitled to inherit the property; and such an assertion of mere title could be taken as referring to cases where the Wife, the Daughter and others are not there.--As for Sharkha's text, it refers to the case of reunited' Brothers. Lastly, Hārīta has declared that 'if the Widur is young and ill-tenipered, etc. etc.' (Text No. 1029), where it is said that she shall receive just enough to keep her alive'.-But this refers to cases where the Widow is suspected of infidelity and hence is not entitled to receive the property. This very text implies that if the widow is zuot suspected of infidelity ill-tempered, etc.), she should receive the entire property. Thus the established law is that if a man, who has been divided and has not become reunited, dies childless, his entire property goes to his christe Trife'. (II) In the absence of the Fife, the Duughters receive the property. We have the Plural Number in Daughters for indicating that Daughters belonging to the same caste shall receive equal shares and those belonging to different castes, unequal shares.-Among the Daughters, if there is one married and another unmarried, then the latter shall receive the property. If one Daughter is settled (1.e. with property of her own), and the other unsettled, then the latter shall receive the property. Because Gautama's declaration, that 'the Strīdhana of the Mother goes to those Daughters who are unmarried and unsettled', applies to the Father's property also.-The present text cannot be taken as referring to the appointed Daughter, because she has been declared to be equal to the Body-born Son'. (III) The particle 'cha' implies that, in the absence of Daughters, the property goes to the Daughter's Son; as declared by Vismu- Aputrapautrasantānē, etc.) and by Ianu 9.136. (IV) In the absence of Daughters and Daughters' Sons, the property goes to the Parents. As between the Parents, the Mother comes first, and then the Father; as in the expounding of the compound, the Mother is named first; and also because the Father is common among a large number of Sons, while the Mother is not so common; and as such she is more nearly related to her Son; hence hers should be the first claim, according to the principle enunciated by Vanu (9.187) regarding the nearest Sapinda inheriting the property'. (1) In the absence of the Father, the property goes to the Brothers; according to Manu 9.185.--Among Brothers, the property should go to the uterine Brothers; because Half-brothers would be one degree further removed. It is only when the uterine Brother is not there that the property goes to the Half-brothers. (VI) In the absence of the Brothers, the property goes to the Brother's Sons--in the order of their Fathers. When there are Brothers and Brother's Sons, the latter have no right to the property; because the Brother's Sons have been declared to be 'heirs' only when no Brother is there. But in & case where one of the several Brothers has died childless, all his surviving Brothers become equally entitled to the property; if then prior to the division of the dead Brother's property, another of the Brothers dies, then the Sons of this latter will have derived their title to the said property of the previously dead Uncle, through their Father; so that when the property comes to be divided, those Sons shall receive the share that would have been their Father's if he had been alive.

·290) VITĀDICHINTAMANI -- (VIII DE CE O Brotter's Sons, the property goes to the Sagotras; these ein-1 tic Tatizer's Hather, (2; the Sapindas, and (3) the Samānodakas. Oi terse. ti.e fro: to receive the property would be the Father's Mother, in accordance witi. Vart 9.217.-In the absence of the Father's Mother, it goes to the Sagotrasa, indasmi.e. the Father's Father and so forth; the Sapindas belonging to other rcfrac being treated as Bandlus.-If there is no descendant of the dead man's Fatzez, the property goes to the following, in this same order :-(1) Father's Mother, :, Father's Father, (3, Father's Brothers, (4) Father's Brother's Sons. If there 1-10 descendant of the Father's Father, then the property goes to the Sagotrasaindas, in the following order-(1) Father's Father's Diother, (2) Father's Father's Father, (3; the Souls of (2), (4, the Sons of (3) and so on,-down to the seventh degree.--In the absence of the Sagotra-Sapindas, the property goes to the Samnoninkas; these are persons up to the seventh degree beyond the Sapindas. (VIII) In the absence of Sagotras, the property goes to the Bandhus (Cognates). These are of three kinds:-(1) one's own Bandhu, (2) one's Father's Bandhu, and (3) ne's Mother's Bandhu. These have been enumerated in Text No. 1050 below. Among these, by virtue of proximity, one's own Bandhu comes first, then the Tiaternal Bandhu, then the maternal Baridhu. IX) In the absence of Cognates, the property goes to the Teacher, -and to the Disciple when the Teacher is not alive. This has been expressly declared by Īpastamla. (X) In the ahsence of Disciples, the property goes to one's Fellow-student,-i.e. the man along with whom one had been initiated and carried on his Vedic study. (XI) In the absence of the Disciple, the property may go to any Vedic Scholar; according to Gautama. In the absence of Vedic Scholars, the property may go to any Brāhmaṇa, as declared hy Jianu (9.188). Under no circumstances shall the King take the property of the Brāhmniņa.-As regards men of the Kşattriya and other castes dying childless, if there is none of the declared 'heirs' there, the property goes to the King, as declared by JIanu (9.189). (Mitakşarā) [On the above, the Bālambhatti has the following notes:–The particle 'éva', *alone', is to be understood after every one of the relatives mentioned; so that, so long as the preceding one is there, the succeeding ones remain excluded. The 'Brothers' include the Sisters also.—The term 'tatha', qualifying the Brothers, is meant to include those also that had been separated and had not become reunited. -Tatsutaḥ' is to be expounded as "tayoḥ sutaħ', i.e. the Sons and Daughters of both Sisters and Daughters.-The term 'Son'includes the Grandson and the Great-grandson also.--If the Wife of the same caste is not there, then the Wife of a different caste may inherit. It is only the Shüdra woman that becomes entirely excluded, as, even though married, she is not entitled to be called "patnī'.-Some people have held that, in the absence of the Wife, the property should go to the Daughter-in-law, not to the Daughter; because being the half-body of the Son, the former has better claims.--This however is not right, because on the ground stated, the Daughter-inlaw should have come before the Wife also; though in reality the Daughter-in-law comes after the Grandmother.--That the particle cha' includes the Daughter's Son has been added in order to make clear an implication, without which the original text would remain defective.-Though Vijñāneshvara has mentioned the Daughter's Son only, yet, the Daughter's Daughter also should be taken as an 'heir' in the absence of the Daughter's Son.-In reality, between the two Parents, the Father should come first, then the Mother; as in the entire law of inheritance, the Father is always mentioned before the Mother.-It has to be noted that after the Mother comes the Step-mother; as she also is included under the denotation of the term Mother'.-The term 'Brother' stands for the Brother and Sister,--the latter coming after the former.- Similarly 'Brother's Sons' includes both Sons and Daughters of the Brothers; as also the Sons and Daughters of the Sisters.Sons of the Father's Sister'-in all these names, the 'Son' includes the Daughter also.-If there are several disciples belonging to the same caste as the deceased Teacher, they shall divide the property equally.] These texts describe the persons who are to inherit the property where the deceased has left none of the twelve kinds of Sons.—'Aputrasya' -one who has left no‘Son' or Grandson or Great-grandson.-(1) The Wife is the first to inherit the property; the 'Wife' being one who has been duly married. Kätyāyana has laid down the condition that the Widow should be chaste; so that if she is not chaste, she does not get the property.- (2) In the absence of the Wife, the property goes to those Daughters who belong to the same caste as the Father and who are unmarried ·INHERITAXCE-PARTITIOX 281 at the time. Some people take this as standing for the Appointed Daughter. This is not right; as the appointed Daughter, having beeii declared to be the third kind of 'Son', and 'equal to the Body-born Son', wuld inherit the property before the Tife. In reality, the term "Daughter' here stands only for that girl who has not been appointed in the formal manner, and yet in regard to thum, there is a suspicion of having been appointed' by the deceased in his own mind.-(3) Pitarau' Parents-Jother and Father. The property goes to the Father, then to the Mother: such being the order of precedence sanctioned by Katyayara and Vişnu. The opinion of the Mitākşzrā on this question, therefore, is open to question.--11) In the absence of the Mother, the uterine Brothers come in; then the Brother's Son; theu the Sagotra, Sapinda, the Sakulya and so forth in the order of proximity of their relationship to the deceased.-In the absence of all these, the property goes tís the Bandhus.- In the absence of the Bandhus, it goes to the Disciples in the al sence of these, to Fellow-students. The particle cha indicates the title of the Step-Brother, in the absence of the uterine Brother. The term 'tathā' indicates the title of the Father's Bandhus, and also that of the Teucher, in the absence of the Bloti er's Bandhus.- In the absence of all these, the property of the Brāhmann goes to such Brāhmaṇas as are learned in the l'eda; but that of the other castes goes to the King. -says Vāradam(Tiramitroda ya-Tīkā on Vājñavalkya). What is meant is that among these,--the Wife, Daughter, Mother, Father, Brother, Brother's Son, Sagotra, Bandhu, Disciple and Fellow-student. - each succeeding one inherits the property in the absence of the preceding. Sonless this implies the absence of the Grandson and Great-grandson also; as has been pointed out by the author of the Prakāsha; and this is quite right; such being the custom also.- Though the use of the collective term 'Parents' would indicate the joint title of the Mother and Father, yet-in view of the text that the property of the Sunless man goes to the Mother'-it is the other who has the prior claim; and the Father comes in only if the Mother is not alive(Tivādarathūlara, pp. 594-395). If a man dies and does not leave any Primary or Secondary Sons, his property goes to his Widow-(Vivādachandra 24.1-10). In the absence of the Wife and the Test down to the Jother, the property goes to the uterine Brother--(Firāduchandra 25.1-2). Here we have the order of inheritance in the case of the property of a man dying without a Son or Grandson.-Tife'-duly married; the singular number is in reference to the caste; so that if there are tives of the same caste as also of different castes, they receive shares in the property in the proportion of 4, 3, 2, 1.- In the absence of the Wife, the Daughters come in. In the absence of Daughters, Daughter's Sons.--Then the Parents-first Mother, then Father.-After the Father, come the Brothers, -among whom the uterine ones come first;- in the absence of both kinds of Brothers, come the Sons of these; first the Sons of the uterine Brother, then the Sons of the Step-brother. In a case where one of the Brothers has died (leaving no Son or Wife or Daughter or Parents),--and his property has been inherited by his Brothers-while all this property is held jointly by all these Brothers, another one of these dies, but leaving Sons,- in this case the share of the deceased shall go to these Sons.- In the absence of the Brother's Sons, the property goes to the Sagotras ;—then to the Samānodakas. The order of precedence among Sagotras is as follows:-Father's Mother, Father's Father, Father's Brothers, -among these, the Sons of the Grandmother come first, then the Sons of her Co-sires,—the Sons of the Paternal Uncles, Father's Father's Mother, Father's Father's Father, Sons of this latter, their Sons, and so on till the set enth degree of ascent. Beyond the seventh degree, the Sapiņda relationship haring ceased, the Samārodakas come in. And as before, the priority shall be determined by the nearness of relationship to the deceased-(Madanapārijāta, pp. 672–674), Sonless' --without any of the twelve kinds of 'Son'.--This rule is applicable to all castes. The Wife meant is one who is duly married. The order of precedence is as follows:-Wife, Daughter, Daughter's Son, Mother, Father, Brother, Brother's Son, Father's Mother, Father's Father, Sons of this last, Sons of these Sons, and so on, to the seventh degree of ascent;-after that, on the extinction of all Sapindas, it goes to the Samānödakas, who extend to the seventh degree beyond the Sapindas, or to that stage up to which the parentage and name continue to be known (Parāsharamādhava, p. 353). Prior to every one else, comes the Wife-(Dāyabhāga, p. 151).-The Wife's right is established by the mere absence of Sons, Grandsons and Great-grandsons (Ibid., pp. 160–163).- Among the Wives, first comes the Wife belonging to the same caste as the Husband, then the one belonging to the next lower caste (Dayabhāga, p. 167). & ·251 VIVĀDACHIXTĀJANI B1.77 1048I... Unre nif Sagigins, Srkulyas shall take the property; in the Toxic of Saklyns, the Teacher, the Disciple or the Priest; in the abend of time, tie Kinz. In the absence of Sayotras, the Bandhu shall take the property, -in ille relance with the declaration by. Vājravalkya (Text No. 1045 above). This Bunuhu is of three kinds:-(1) One's own Bandhu, (2) the Paternal Bondhu, and (3) the laternal Bandhu. These are as follows:- [1930] (4-One's own Father's Sister's Sons, one's own Mother's Sister's Suns, and one's own Maternal Uncle's Sons-are to be known as one's own Barthus. (B) The Father's Father's Sister's Son, the Father's Iſother's Sister's Son and the Father's Vaternal Uncle's Sons are to be known aw the Paternal Bandhus.-(B) The Mother's Father's Sister's Son, the Mother's Mother's Sister's Son and the Mother's Maternal Uncle's Sonare to be known as the laternal Bandhus.' The title of these to succession is in the same order of precedence in which they are named here.-The same opinion is found in Bălarūpa also. The property of the dead man, in the absence of all the Heirs above described, is to be taken by the King -excepting the property of the Brihmara.--This is what lias been declared by Janu (9.184)— [1051] 'The property of the Brūhinana shall never be taken by the King; Such is the Law. In the case of other castes, the King shall take the property in the absence of all (Heirs).** Dēxala- [1052] 'In all cases where there is no Heir, the King shall take the property, excepting the property of the Brāhmana. The property of the Brāhmana which there is no one to inherit, the king shall make over to Vedic Scholars. qualifications of the persons concerned; and also the amount of benefit conferred by the particular person upon the deceased owner-(Piramitrodaya, pp. 668-669). The Druita parishişta (p. 43) reproduces the words of l'irādachintāmani. "Suvarna bhrātaraḥ-Half-brothers—(Vibhāgasāra 16.2-6). *'In the absence of all Heirs down to the Disciple-(Sarvajñanārāyana). The rule of the Law is that the King shall never take the property of the Brāhmanu ; in the absence of Brāhmaṇas possessing the requisite qualifications, the King shall inake over the property to any ordinary Brālnana. The property of the Ksuttriya and others, however, the King himself shall take over; if there is no one of those who have been declared to be entitled to inherit the property-(Kullūka). Nrpa', i.e. the Guardian of the Country- (parārka). The King shall never take the property of the Brāhmaṇa; that of the Kşattriya and other castes,-in the absence of all heirs, down to the Fellow-student, shall be taken by the King (Alitālsarā, pp. 790-791; also Madanapārijāta, p. 675), Arpa'-i.e. the Guardian of the Country and the Town-(smſtichandrikā, The Brāhmana's property shall never go to the King; that of the Kşattriya and others goes to the King, if there are no heirs—(Paräsharamādhava, p. 355): 'In the absence f all!,- including eren the Brāhmana—with the exception of the property of the Brāhmana, the property of all heirless persons shall go to the King-Dayabhāga, p. 217). P. 698).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 285 Adāyakam'-to which there is no Heir, Brhaspati (25.67) [1053] Should a Kşattriya, l'aishya or Shüdra die without a Son, Wife or Brother, then property shall be taken by the King; as he is the master of all.' * Baudhayana- (1054) 'The Brāhmana's property, like poison, destroys the King along with his Son and Grandson; therefore the King shall never take the property of the Brahmana.' Shankha-Likhita- (1055] "The property of the Vedic Scholar goes to the Parişad (Society), not to the King."* "Parişad', 'Society', -i.e. the Brāhmanas. The order of succession, in brief, is as follows:-(1) The Son,-(2) in his absence, the Son's Son,-(3) in the absence of (2), the Great-grandson;- -14) in the latter's absence, the Chaste Wife;—(6) in her absence, the Daughter;—(6) in her absence, the Mother;-(7) in her absence, the Father; (8) in his absence, the Brother;(9) in his absence, the Brother's Son,-in his absence, the following in this order:-(10) the nearmost Sakulya-(11) then the remote Sakulya,-(12) then the Maternal Cognates; (13) and in the absence of all, the King; except in the case of the Brāhmaṇa's property. As regards the Brāhmana's property some other Brâhmana alone who may be possessed of superior qualifications can be entitled. I Yājñavalkya (2.138) (1056] 'The property of the Hermit, the Renunciate and the Religious Student is taken, in due order, by the Teacher, the good Disciple, the Spiritual Brother of the same order.' "In due order-i.e. in the inverse order; hence (a) the property of the Religious Student goes to the Teacher; (b) that of the Renunciate, to his Disciple; (c) and that of the Hermit, to another Hermit who may have been regarded as the Spiritual Brother [i.e. a Brother-Hermit]. Though Vashistha (17.52) has declared that-'those who have entered other Life-stages have no shares in property', -according to which the Hermit and the Renunciate could not have any ancestral property, yet it is possible for the Hermit to possess property accumulated during the year, and for the Renunciate to have property' in the form of the waist-cloth and such articles. * Without Son, etc. etc. This is meant to include all those down to the Fellowstudent who have been declared to be 'heirs'. The order of succession among these having been fixed, the King could not come between any two of them (Vīramitrodaya, p. 649). †'Parişat'-stands for the Brāhmanas (Vivādaratnākara, p. 598; also Vibhagasāra 17.1-1), This same order is repeated in Vibhāgasāra 17.1-1). The 'Religious Student' meant here is the Life-long Student Dharmabhrātā, Spiritual Brother', is one who is under the same Teacher.-Ekatīrthi', one belonging to the same Life-stage-(Vishvarūpa). If any one of the persons mentioned here dies, his property will go to the Teacher and the rest, 'in due order'; i.e. each succeeding one taking it in the absence ·280 VIVADACHIXTĀJIANI Slavir 437. "T.. prpriy oi woman,-in the shape of the six kinds of Strīdhana,- ibud the property of minors in the shape of their ancestral property.- all nerz-r bescheated to the King.' of the prece.ling.--"Good Disciple is the Disciple endowed with specially good quali - fications.--"Dharmahlrūtā', 'Spiritual Brother, is one who has been initiated by the same Teacher. "Ikutirthi' is the person belonging to the same persuasion (holding similar views), or the perstin living in the same sacred place, Benares and the like. That the Hermit has some property is indicated by such texts as lay down that the Hermit should give his arrumulated wealth during the month of Ashvina'. The Renuntiate and the Religious Student also possess such things as the ragged clothes and the like-14 parūrka). This is an exception to the general rule that property is inherited by Sons and Grandsous, etr, etc.-Of the Hermit, the Renunciate and the Religious Student,- the property is taken by the Teacher, the good Disciple and the coadjutor-Spiritual Brother --'in due order i.e. in the inverse order.(a) The 'Religious Student meaut here is the Life-lony Student; as for the other kind of Religious Student (the ordinary one), who is going to enter the life of the Householder,-his property goes to his Mother and uther relatives. It is an exception to this general rule that we have here, regarding the Life-long Student, whose property is to go to his Teacher.-ih) The property of the Renunciate is taken by his "Good Disciple' i.e. that Disiple who is efficient in listening to the philosophical scriptures, retaining them in luis mind and regulating his life according to them. Those Disciples who are ill-beharrd,-cren though they be etficient teachers and the like,- are not entitled to inherit the property of the Renunciate.-(e) The property of the Hermit is taken by the Dharmabhrūtrekatīrthi';-*dhariabhrātā' who has been regarded by one sus his "Bruther', and 'okutīrthi' is one who belongs to the same order; 80 that the (Karmouthāraya) compound word 'dharmabhrātrēkatīrthi' stands for the "Brother-Hermit'. In the absence of the Teacher and all the rest, the property is taken by a person belonging to their same order as the deceased, even though he may have Sons and Grandsons.--As regards the objection that the Life-long Student and other persons belonging to orders other than that of the Householder, cannot have any property of their ow,--the answer is that the Hermit may possess property, as is indicated by such texts as "he shall accumulate wealth enough to last for a day, a month, six months, or a year, and give it away in the month of Ashvina';-as for the Renunciate, he has to keep the loin-slip, a covering, books on Yoga and other accessories and a pair of sandals.-As for the Life-long Student, he also has to have such property as clothes and other things necessary for the keeping of the body- (Hitäksarā). (a) The property of the Hermit accumulated by him according to the text- * He shall accumulate wealth and give it away in the month of Astrina',-(6) the property of the Renunciate, held in accordance with the text 'He shall keep the Yogic accessories and the sandals', ---and (c) the property of the Life-long Student, in the shape of Clothing - all this shall be taken by the Teacher and the rest,- 'in due order'; i.e. each succeeding one taking it in the absence of the preceding.-- Acharya Teacher; 'Good Disciple' one efficient in listening to and retaining in his mind the teachings about the Self-Ekatīrtha'-Fellow-student, one who has studied under the same Teacher; this last is also the 'Brother'in spiritual matters', in the performance of religious duties; he is called 'Brother on account of having the same Teacher, who acts as their common 'Father'-(Viramitrodaya-Tīkā on Yājňavalkya). The Religious Student' meant is the Life-long Student.--Dharmabhrātā'-one having the same Tcacher;-'Ekatīrtha', one studying the same science.-'In due order_i.e. each succeeding one inheritag in the absence of the preceding-(Smrtichandrikā, p. 699). "In due order-i.e. in the inverse order. 'Religious Student'-The Life-long Student; the property of the student who is going to enter civic life goes to his Father and other relatives (Dāyabhāga, p. 217). The 'Religious Student' meant is the Life-long one. As regards the ordinary Religious Student, as it is not possible for him to have'a Son, Wife, Daughter or Daughter's Son, -his property goes to his Father and the rest mentioned in Yājñaralkya's list (Text No. 1045).-The 'due order' meant here is the inverse ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 287 “Şadāgamam'-i.e. the six kinds of Strīdhana, defined under Text No. 953 above (Ianu 9.194). Manu (8.27) [1058] "The King shall take care of the property owned by a minor till the time of his Accomplishment and Return, or till he has passed his minority.'* • . order; so that (a) the property of the dead Life-long Religious Student goes to his Teacher,-) that of the Renunciate, to his good Disciple,--and (c) that of the Hermit, to his Brother-Hermit.--Dharmabhrātā' is one who has been adopted as a Brother, and 'Ēkatīrtha' is one belonging to the same order.-The 'goodness of the Disciple consists not in his possessing a good character, but in his efficiency to attend to, assimilate and practise the teachings of the scriptures.--The view of the Iadunaratna however is that the 'order' meant in the present text is the same in which the persons have been named; so that the Hermit's property goes to the Teacher, and failing him, to the Disciple The present text precludes all other likely heirs and declares the persons mentioned as the only ones entitled to receive the property--(Piramitrodaya, pp. 675-676). 'In due order-i.e. in the inverse order; so that the property of the Life-long Student shall go to the Teacher,--of the Renunciate, to his good Disciple.and of the Hermit, to the Dharmabhratékntirthi; dharmabhrātā' is one who has been accepted as a Brother, and ēkatirthi' is one belonging to the same order.-Though all this goes against t'ashiştha's dictum that persons other than Householders can hold no property,--pet the present text may be reconciled somehow with it by taking it as referring to some little things that every man must possess-(Firādaratnākara, p. 600). It is the Life-long Religious Student that is meant.--"Good Disciple'-one endowed with the knowledge and due contemplation of philosophical teachings.- Dharmabhrātā' is one who has been accepte as a Brother;* ēkatīrthi' is one belonging to the same order, i.e. another Hermit; hence the compound means a Brother-Hermit Living near one's own hermitage. Due order' stands here the inverse order. Thus the property of the Hermit, in the shape of his annual grain-supply, shall go to his Brother-Hermit; the property of the Renunciate in the shape of clothes, books and so forth, shall go to his good Disciple; and the property of the Life-long Student, in the shape of Clothes, etc., shall go to his Teacher--(ladanapārijāta, p. 676). 'In due order?-i.e. in the inverse order; so that the Teacher receives the property of the Life-long Student, the Disciple receives the property of the Renunciate and the property of the Hermit goes to another Hermit who may have been treated by the deceased as a 'Brother-Hermit'-(Vivādachandra 24.2-5). The interse order is what is intended here. So that the property of the Life-long Student is taken by the Teacher, not by his Father or other relatives;--the property of the ordinary Religious Student is taken by his Father and others;- the property of the Renunciate goes to his good Disciple; one who is ill-behaved receives nothing; the property of the Hermit goes to another Hermit who has had the same Teacher as the deceased.--Or the meaning of the text may be that the property of the Hermit, the Renunciate and the Religious Student is inherited in the following order of precedence-(1) Teacher, (2) Good Disciple, and (3) the Spiritual Brother belonging to the same order; i.e. each succeeding one receiving it in the absence of the preceding -What the dictum of Vashistham that persons of other orders do not receive shares'--means is that a person of one order does not inherit the property of a person in another order'; it does not mean that there is no sharing of the property among persons of the same order-(Parāsharamādhava, p. 365). The order of succession meant here is the inverse one. So the Teacher is the successor of the Religious Student,--the Disciple, of the Renunciate, and of the Hermit, another Hermit regarded by the deceased as his Brother. In the case of the Hermit and the Renunciate, though ancestral property is not possible, yet they can have such property as the Loin-slip and the like (Vibhāgasāra 17.1-4). 'Balodāya'-is what has been inherited by the minor. The property owned by the minor shall be looked after by the King till such time as he may return from the Teacher's house as an Accomplished Student, or till he may have passed his minority. The second alternative of passing the minority' is meant for those who pass their childhood at home and are not handed over to a Teacher. In the case of one however who has entered a Teacher's House as a Religious Student,- even though he may have passed his minority,--his property shall have to be * ·VIVĀDACHIXTĀMANI CICIOS ,0;-PARTITION AJIONG REUNITED COPARCENERS exlibject, say: Brkaspali (25.72) *1977 "If a man who had been separated, lives again, through affection, wi: 1 iais Father or Brother or Cncle, he is said to be Reunited.' vzni sarja', 'Reunion', consists in the understanding that “among Pir-lv-, what belongs to one belongs to all'. That there exists such an 'indle-standing among certain people is learnt from their activities which could not be explained on any other hypothesis. Such an understanding creates the ownership of each and every member of the compact over all the property that has been, is being and will be, acquired by each one of L.P.-Brit, inasmuch as the test has specifically named certain persons, it follows that there can be such 'Reunion', consisting in the pooling together of properties that had been divided, only with one's Father, Brother or Uncle is the view of the Prakāsha.-This however cannot be right. Because there is the term “punaḥ, 'again', which denotes repetition; and the implication of this term is that all that 'Reunion' means simply "the pooling of the properties that had been divided before"; this is a much simpler explanation. Tlus the term 'Reunion' becomes applicable to the coming together of one with such persons also as the Uncle's Son and so furth, in fact all those from whom separation' is possible; and the mention of the Father iur.d others in the text is only by way of illustrative detail.- It is for this same reason that the Ratnākara and others have declared that the particle rā' has been added in view of the fact that there can be no restriction regarding the person or persons with whom 'Reunion' is possible. -The view of the Moderns however is that it is much simpler to take *Reunion' in the sense of 'the pooling together of the properties of those whose properties have been separated'; and it is not necessary to add the qualification that there should have been previous separation (or partition); as this only coraplicates matters. As for the properties being separate, they w looked after until he returns from the Teacher's house. Or the meaning may be that, in the case of twice-born persons, the 'Return shall be the limit, -while in that of others, it shall be the passing of the minority '-(Medhātithi). repalayēt'-should take it under his charge and guard it.—'Return from the Teacher's house.e. after the period of thirty-six years and so forth.-If, during this interval, there arises any need for drawing upon the minor's property,—with a view to such a contingency, the test has added the second alternative. Minority' lasts till the end of the sixteenth year-(Sarvajñanarāyana). In a case where the property of a minor without guardian is in the wrongful possession of his Unele or other relations, the King should take care of it till such time as he may return from the Teacher's house after having completed the course of study; as by that time the minor will have passed over his inexperience. In a caso however where on account of his incapacity, the boy returns from the Teacher's house during his boyhood, his property shall be guarded by the King till he passes his minority; the period of minority extending over sixteen years-Kullüka). * Bilarāya, etc.'--the property owned by a boy who has no guardian,--the King shall guard against his Uncle and others; till he returns from the Teacher's house, Or--in the case of the Shūdra and others--till he has passed his minority, (Raghavānanda). The property owned by a minor, the King shall protect against his relatives and others who may be trying to take possession of it. Of the two alternatives, which one shall be adopted shall depend upon such circumstances as actual need or capacity and so forth-(Nandana). The property of the minor who has no relatives, the King shall guard till he has returned from the Teacher's house, on the completion of his study- (Ramachandra). The property belonging to the minor, the King shall guard against his relatives-- (Vivādaratnākara, p. 598), Anupālayet-id not escheat it (Vibhagasāra 17.1–7).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 289 may have been so either in the ordinary course of life, or through partition, -that is a different matter. The only basis for any such Reunion consists in the agreement of the parties reuniting, and there is nothing to prevent such agreement between parties whose properties have been separated in the ordinary course of life (and not through partition).-If it were not so then, in a case where the man had been separated from his Father, but comes to live together with the Brother horn after the death of that Father, could not be said to be · Reunited'.-Be it so'-it may be said.But that cannot be right; because as a matter of fact, such persons also are to be regarded as Reunited.-In cases where the coparcener is a minor, the Reunion, like Partition, can be brought about only through the consent of the Mother and such others (as may be the guardians of the Alinor); as such is the actual practice ainong people.* * Three kinds of Samsrsti', 'Reunited Coparcener' have been described here-- (Apararka, p. 748). The article rā' is meant to imply that the persons mentioned here are not the only kinds of 'Reunited Coparceners'; so that even when one has been separated froni a coparcener in the sliape of the Uncle's Son, and has subsequently come to live with him, he also is spoken of in the word as 'Reunited'.--The Prakasha. however, holds that on account of the specific number of the three relatives, these are the only three kinds of Reunited Ccparceners—(Vivādaratnākara, pp. 605-606). Reunion' does not consist in the parties living and cooking together; it consists in the pooling of these properties after having previously divided them. The term punah' indicates the fact of the parties having been originally reunited and then become separated. Such Reunion is brought about by the understanding to the effect that-'over all our properties our ownership shall be joint'; it is this understanding that constitutes Reunion'; and this agreement is in the form all our past, present and future belongings shall be as much yours as mine'-(Vivādachandra 24.2-7). That Son is said to be 'Reunited with the Father who, after having separated from him, comes to live with him again, through his love for him. The implication of this is that it cannot be called 'Reunion' in the technical sense) except when it is with the Father, Brother or Uncle; it would not be 'Reunion' when it is with the Uncle's Son, for instance 'Reunion' does not consist in mere co-residence, it consists in the parties pooling their resources in the manner in which they were before separation-(Smſtichandrikā, p. 700). It is only with the Father, Brother or Uncle that one can be said to be 'Rounited' (in the technical sense)-(Madanapārijāta, p. 677). The Son who had become separated from the Father-if, through affection, he joins him again, is said to be · Reunited'. What is meant is that anyone who is in co-residence with another person is called 'Reunited'--(Paräsharamādhava, It is only in the case of parties who are by nature, normally undivided in regard to the ancestral pruperty, such parties for instance as the Father and Son, Brother and Brother, or Nephew and Uncle.--that, when, after having separated, they come together again, through mutual affection,--and annulling their previous parti. tion; they pool their belongings, coming to the understanding to the effect that That is yours is mine and what is mine is yours', and come to live together in the same house and as one 'Householder',--they come to be spoken of as Reunited'; and not in the case of parties other than those who are naturally undivided, such for instance, as traders who pool their resources and carry on their business jointly. Nor would the term apply to the said parties who, after being separated, merely pool their resources and do not come to the said understanding, through mutual affection-(Dāyabhāya, p. 160; and Viramitrorlaya, p. 647). Smrtitattra II, pp. 163-164, quotes and rejects the above view of the Dāyabhāga and supplies the following explanation of the text-'After partition has been effected, if, through friendliness, Son and Father, Brother and Brother, or Nephew and Uncle, come and live together, this is what is called Reunion'. 'All our property-past, present and future shall belong to every one of us, till we separate again, - those uniting under such an agreement are called 'Reunited. -So says the Prakāsha, which adds that 'such Reunion is permissible only with one's Father, Brother or Paternal Uncle'.-Others have held that 'Reunion' is the coming together of persons who have been holding separate properties.--Both 19 p. 361).

·VITĀDACHISTĀMANI Again, Brkaszati (23.73-75) ito_'\14-12 Brothers, privicu-ly-eparated, have come to live in one place, irough afectiun.-when they procecd to make a second partition, here shall be no primogeniture.—* 1001 –Wien any one of the Reunited Coparceners happens to die, or go array as a Renunciate, his shure shall not disappear; it shall be allotted to his uterine Brother;- (1002) -If there is a Sister of his, she is entitled to receive a share out of that share.-Such is the Law relating to one who has left no child or Wife or Father." these views are unacceptable, on account of the presence of the word 'punaḥ', * again'. According to the second view, a case where, for convenience of business transactions, the Mother joins her property with the property of her minor Son, would have to be regarded as one of 'Reunion', -Hence the view of the l'ivādaratrukara is that the particle *ra' indicates indefiniteness ; so that the meaning is that 'if a man becomes united with another from whom he had been separated, he is said to be Reunited (Tibhūyaxūra, 17.1-8). The meaning is as fullows:-In a case where a number of persons are, by birth, dot-diviled in relation to the Father's and Grandfather's property--but they have become divided.if, through friendliness, these persons set aside their previous division and come together again as members of the Joint Family,--with the agree. nent that what is mine is yours and what is yours is mine',-these persons are * Reunited Coparceners'.-This appellation cannot apply to a body of traders joining together-(Dayanirnaya 8.1). * The denial of the Preferential Share due to primogeniture should be understood to pertain to the twire-born castes; as in the case of the Shūdra, there is no Preferential Share under any circumstances-(Smrtitattza II, p. 193). The meaning is that, though the person concerned may be entitled to a higher phare, there shall be no Preferential Share in this case -(Vibhāgasāra 17.2-2). Seniority' is not taken into account in cases where there is repartition among reunited Brothers (Dūyanirnaya 21.1). + Before the previous (initial) partition,' if a member dies or becomes a Renunciate, his share disappears, and the entire property goes to his co-residents. It is not so in the case of reunited members; in whose case, the entire property shall not be taken by all the members of the joint family; the share of the dead or Renunciate member shall be assigned, not to his Wife, as in the case of the Husband who has been separated from his coparceners--but to the reunited uterine Brother of that member. No significance attaches to the Singular Number in 'uterine Brother'; so that the share of the said person shall go to all such uterine Brothers of his as may be among the Reunited- Smrtichandrikā, pp. 701-702). *Nalupyatë’---This refers to reunited coparcener. The last line means that the reunited uterine Brother is entitled to receive the share of the dead Brother, only if this Brother has left no Son or Daughter or Wife or Father-(Dāyabhāga, Among reunited coparceners, if any one dies, or becomes a Renunciate, his share does not disappear; that share goes to his uterine Brother, according to Manu (9.212).--The sentence anapatyasya, etc.' is meant to be an exclusion of other views. Some people have offered the following explanation: In a case where there are two uterine Brothers-one Step-brother, and a part of their property has been divided, after which they become reunited,—if one of the said two uterine Brothers dies, the proportion of his share in the undivided portion of the property also having been practically settled by the partial division that they have had, what the present text does is to specifically point out that the share of the dead Brother shall be taken by his uterine Brother.-This, however, cannot be right; as no division aver takes place by merely pointing out, unless there is a throw of dice (drawing of lots). So it is the dice-throw that determines the shares (Vibhāgasära 17.2-3). 19в p. 156).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 291 *** (1063)-Among Reunited Coparceners, if any one should acquire additional property, through learning, valour and other means in that property, he shall have a double share, and the others shall receive equal shares.' *Ēkatra', 'in one place', (in 1060)-i.e. in one joint family, after becoming Reunited.—Primogeniture (in 1060)-That is, even when there may be circumstances justifying a Preferential Share, no such share shall be given. -The same authority is going to declare (in Text No. 1063) that the property acquired by any one through learning, etc. is an exception to this denial of the Preferential Share. There any one, etc. etc.' (1061)--from among these coparceners becomes debarred, either by death or by having entered another life-stage--from sharing in the property,- even then his share in the property does not disappear.-The question arising as to the person to whom this share should go, the answer is'it shall be allotted to his uterine Brother'-i.e. to his reunited uterine Brother; because it is simpler to take it thus in view of the present text having the same source as the following text of Manu (9.212) [10641—'His uterine Brothers, coming together, shall divide the property equally, as also the Reunited Brothers and consanguineous Sisters.'t * "Learning and valour' include also other conditions which would tend to connect the property with the acquirer alone-(Vivādarainākara, p. 602). Among reunited coparceners, if any one acquires more wealth by learning, valour and such other special efforts of his as would connect the property with him alone,--he is to receive a double share in that wealth-(Vivādachandra 26.1-10). Double share'-in the additional property acquired by him. This text lays down the partibility of that also which may have been acquired without drawing upon the reunited property--(Smrtichandrikā, p. 701). The 'double share' is to be understood as to be given only in the additional property that has been acquired-Madanapārijāta, p. 680). The 'double share' is to be given only in the additional property acquired by him, not in the entire property. This is meant to declare the partibility of that also which has been acquired without drawing upon the joint property- (Parāsharamadhava, p. 361). This lays down an exception to the general rule regarding the impartibility of what has been acquired by learning, valour and the like(Vāramitrodaya, p. 677). The 'double share' for the acquirer having been laid down as the general rule, what is meant by the present text is that in the case of Reunited Coparceners, the acquirer receives two shares even in that property which has been acquired by him through drawing upon the reunited joint property, while under the general rule he receives a double share only in what he has acquired without drawing upon the joint property. So says Madana-(Tyarahāramayūk:ha, p. 147). † If among the Brothers, some one becomes debarred, by death or renunciation or some such cause, from sharing in the property, his share does not become lost; his share shall be taken by those 'uterine Brothers' who may have been united with him in property - also consanguineous Sisters', i.e. those unmarried; these alone can be called Sanābhi', 'consanguineous', -those married having gone over to the family of their Husbands;- also the "reunited Brothers'. This should not be taken to mean that the share shall be taken-(1) by the uterine Brothers, as also (2) by such Brothers as may have been reunited to him; as in that case, those Brothers who are not uterine, but reunited, would be entitled to a share in the property. Among the uterine Brothers, there may be some who had become reunited, and others who had not become reunited to him; and in a case where both these kinds of uterine Brothers are present, both shall divide the property among themselves.--This will not militate against Yājñavalkya 2.139 (Text No. 1068 below). If however, there are no uterine Brothers at all, then the property shall be taken by such Step-brothers as may be reunited with the deceased, -and none others. Among uterine Brothers, even when separated, there is always some sort of nearness ; so that the functions of the uterine Brother would, in a general way, be accomplished by even those that may be separated. Hence it is that among such uterine Brothers also as may have separated, if one dies, his property shall go to the other uterine Brother, whose right over the property can never entirely disappear-(Medhātithi).

·292 VIVĀDACHIXTĀMANI So that the Brothers that are uterine--in case they are not reunited, la 1,04 Chroin the said share. 11Zzat should be cure with the share is that those reunited with him-either uterine Brothers, or Step-br sthersvr uterine Sisters shall take it. That is to say, Ite) if there is a realitre :terine rother, it goes to him; (b) if there is no reunited Herine Brother it shall ta the reunited Step-brother;—(0) if there are no reunited Step-brothers als, then it shall go to the uterine Sisters; (d) failing such Sisters, it shall go to the Srours of tlie uterine Brothers; (e) failing these, to non-uterine Brothers and si tirth. But all this shall be done only if the regular heirs,-Son, Wife, Daughter, Mother, Father-are not therto(Sarrajannārāyaṇa). If amung the Brutliers, arr une bersmes deprived of his share, by becoming a Renziate or through some other disability, or dies,-his share shall not dis. Allinear. His uterine Brothers, inming together, as also his uterine Sisters, shall tuke his sliare in equal parts. Similarly among uterine Brothers and Step-brothers also,--the uterine Brothers and Step-brothers shall divide the property equally 12:01. 11.-12.selves who may have been combined in property with the deceased.-- Ti-is hurrerer should be the case only if the disabled man has left no son or Wife His Father or Juther--(Kullūka). The order is: (1) uterine Brothers, (2) reunited Step-brothers, (3) uterine Sisters-(Ramachandra). All the uterine Brothers shall divide the property among themselves, -as also his unmarried Sisters—(Rūgharūrinda). (a) If the man has any uterine Brothers reunited with him, then the property gors to these; but ever uterine Bruthers shall not receive the property if they lad 1200 been reunited.-6) If there are nu reunited uterine Brothers, all the uterine Brothers, coming together, shall divide the shuru equally among themselves. -(C) If there are u uterine Brothers, the property gues to the uterine Sisters.- () If there are no uterine Sisters, then it goes to Half-sisters and Half-brothers -(A parārka). The share of the person concerned does not become inerged in the joint property of the Reunited Coparceners. It shall be disposed of in the following manner:- His uterine Brothers shall divide it; i.e. it shall be divided among all his uterine Drothers--those also who were not reunited with him and also those that may have gone abroad-equally--(Witāksarā, pp. 831-833). [On this, the Balambhatti has the following notes:~The first sentence speaks of 'Brothers and the second of reunited Brothers'; hence all Brothers are meant-those reunited as well as those not reunited; the first sentence speaks of the Brothers as uterine'; hence the second sentence should be taken as referring to Step-brothers ---Sanābhayah'-uterine. The Step-brothers meant are those of the same caste as the disabled person.] Among Reunited Brothers, if any one dies or becomes otherwise disabled to possess property, his share shall go to those 'Brothers' who are 'uterine',--the adjective uterine' qualifying Brothers',-and who have been reunited; i.e. those who fulfill both the conditions of being uterine and reunited;-as also "uterinc Sisters'- but only those that are marricu; those married having taken their Husband's yotrıı, hence no longer Surabhi', consanguineou8 with their Brothers -says the Prakāslam(Tiradaratnākura, p. 601). Only such Brothers will receive that share as have been reunited with him; such in the view of the Ratnākara and the Smstisära.- According to the Balarūpa however, both the conditious should be fulfilled by the 'Brothers '-being uterine' as well as being reunited'; and what the text is meant to assert is that the unreunited uterine Brother and the reunited Step-brother shall receive equal shares (Vivādachandra 25.1-2). In this text we have two words 'sodaryúh' (uterine) and “bhrātarah' (Brothers) in two separate sentences; hence the former should be taken as standing for uterine Brothers, and the latter, for Step-brothers. Then again, inasmuch as the term 'samaršļā' (reunited) occurs in the second sentence,--and as that term does not appear along with the term 'bhrātaraḥ in the first sentence,—it follows that such uterine Brothers also are meant to be included as are not-reunited. Thus the meaning is as follows:-(a) The uterine Brothers even those not-reunited shall all come together and divide the property among themselves;-) similarly the ‘Brothers i.e. Step-brothers belonging to the same caste, who had been reunited; and (c) then the uterine Sisters. That is to say, all these persons-(a) all uterine Brothers, (6) Reunited Step-brothers of the same caste, and (c) uterine Sisters,—shall share the property equally-Madanapārijāta, pp. 678-679).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 293 Some people have held the following rier: 'In a case where after some portion of the joint property has been partitioned the parties become reunited.—if one of the reunited coparceners dies, the proportion of his share in the unpartitioned portion also of the joint property has been determined by the aforesaid partial partition,-in accordance with the maxim of "the Rice in the Pot" (where one grain is found to be soft and cooked, the whole lot is regarded to be soft and cooked); so that, on this understanding, the share of the disabled or dead person should also be definitely assigned and indicated; and the share thus assigned and indicated shall be taken by his Reunited uterine Brother;-and it is in reference to this that there is the exclusion laid down in Text No. 1062 (that this rule refers to cases where the man has no child).' This view cannot be accepted. Because the previous partial partition cannot be taken as determining the proportion of his share in the whole joint property ; because that partition was related to him only because lle was alive at that time. The determining and assigning of the share on his death, etc., horrever, could not be done without the casting of lots'. Hence the effect of the previous partial partition can consist only either (a) in the contraction (limitation) of the initial combined proprietory right of all the co-sharers, or (6) in the creation of the partial proprietary right of each individual co-sharer over the portions divided. So that (under this view) such a partition would give rise to such ideas in the minds of the co-sharers as 'this has fallen to your lot, not mine', 'this has fallen to my lot, not yours' and so forth; under the circumstances, if the casting of lots' is simultaneous, then the whole lot will have become divided; if it is gradual, then, how can the said maxim of the 'Rice in the Pot' be applicable.--the attendant circumstances being different with each case ? Yājñaralkya (2.138) also has declared as follos- [1065—A) If a Reunited Coparcener has died. his Reunited Coparcener shall give his share to the Son that may be born to that coparcener; and he shall himself force that share in case no such is bom).--(B) It is the uterine Brother who will deal this with the share of the uterine Brother'. The term jātasya' means living, according to Halāyudha. Others have explained the meaning of the text as follows:- (a) The uterine Brothers. (b) uterine Sisters, and (c) Step-brothers are to divide the said share; and from the words 'sarrē' and 'sahitāḥ, it is clear that (a) Reunited Step-brothers, (h) uterine Brothers, and (c) uterine Sisters--all conjointly-do the clividing.--Some people have explained the meaning to be as follows:-(a) The uterine Brothers shall take the said share, if they had been reunited with the owner, not if they had not been so reunited ;-(6) in the absence of reunited uterine Brothers, all uterine Brothers shall share it equally among themselves; (c) in the absence of all uterine Brothers, the uterine Sisters shall take the property; (d) in the absence of uterine Sisters, the Step-brothers shall take it. This explanation, however, cannot be accepted; as it inroles several forced constructions and is inherently inequitable(Smstichandrilă, pp. 703-704). The purely uterine Brothers are mentioned by the term 'sodaryāḥ'; and the Reunited Step-brothers, by the term samsyşļāh'; and what is meant is that both these groups have to do the dividing jointly--(Dayabhāga, p. 204). (a) In the first place, the property should go to the man's heirs; (b) if there are no heirs, it goes to his uterine Brothers, even those that may not have been reunited, -as also those that may have been reunited with him; also those Step-brothers who may have been reunited with him, and also the uterine Sisters;- all these shall divide the property among themselves(Viramitrodaya, p. 670). The terms 'sodaryāḥ and 'bhrātarah' should be construed together, meaning uterine Brothers. Also those who were 'samsstāḥ-i.e. the Wife, Father, Grandfather, Step-brother, Uncle's Sons and others, who may have been reunited with the person-(Pyarahāramayūkha, pp. 149-150).

·294 VTVÅLICHIXTĀMANI In a citos trire the Father and Son have become reuniter, and there is it..cimr son tilat Trus bm' lātasya) to the Father after the previous partitinu, mien tir Father dies, the Sun who had been reunited with him shall grre the Father's Share to the said Son. 117at the text 'susrstinastu, etc.' means is that—when a Reunited Coparierer lia- died, the person entitled to his property is the other Reunited Coparcener; but when the reunion' has been between a uterine Brother and a non-uftrine Brother, it is the uterine Brother that is so entitled. Thus, tliti, where there has beun 'reunion' bettreen Father and Son, if there is another Son who is still separated from the Father,—the share of the Father gocs to luis Reunited Son, not to the one who has not been reunited. Because wluat the text has asserted is without any reservation. This is only right, becalize the fact of there being ‘reunion' between Father and Sun ako has been clearly declared in Brhaspati's text (No. 1059 above). Specially because the rights of the other Sons over the (separated) Father's property have been set aside by the previous separation and partition); plule the right of the Reunited Son over that property has been created by the Reunion itzelf. It cannot be right to argue that—the ‘limitation that the deceased should be childless, contained in Text No. 1062, what has been asserted is not possible'.-Because what has been said there refers to the Nou born after the 'Reunion'.-Thus then the upshot of the whole is that the property of the Reunited Father goes to the Sons born after the previous partition and if there are no such Sons, it goes to the Reunited Son, or the Reunited Brother and nthers, but not to one who has been nof-reunited (i.e. sepurated).* * Win a person, having hoone separated, cuines, fur snme reason, to unite Hui live with the Father or Brother, froin whom he had separated, he is called *xameļi', 'Reunited. While such reunitril Father and Sons are living together,-- if another Son happrus to be born to the Father --le also shall be given a share; and if ne of the Sou dies l.is slant stall he resulted. "Sodarasyn tu sodaraḥ thie uterie Brother and the forme Brother"; should be taken as referring to tances where the partitir las they'll made through the Mothers, and as applying to the Son her after partition, in a case where the property has no property (l'ishirija). It has been said that when one of the Brothers has died Sunless and has left no Wife or Daughter or Parents--his property goes to lus Brothers. Further details relaid ilız hrore in conuertion with that general rule.--When une divided property las brorue witd with another divided 1.1'upertr, it is called 'samsrata', 'Reunion”; and these we are parties to sul mion are called "sunerati? "Reunited'. When vile surl reait d persua: dies, hus proscrty shall he taken by a reunited Brother;- i.e. the virranc Brother, and not the Stejs-brother, even though the latter also be seunited. If a Son is born to the reunited Brother after his death, then the surviving reunited Brother shall give the share «f that dead Brother to that Son.-This latter statement is made in the present context only casually. The rule laid down in this text is stated obriously in the next text (Yājñavalkya 2.139)-(4 parārka). (A) Here we have an exception to the general rule that when a man dies Sonless, 1:is presierty goes to his Wife, Daughters, etc. etc. (Yājñavalkya 2.137). When the property once divided is again wited, it is called samsytn', 'reunited property'; and the owuer of such pruperty is called 'sam sys!7', 'reunited coparcener". The * reunion' meant here is not one with any une at random; it is only that with the Father, Brother or Lucle, as declared by Bru; uti Test No. 1059).-When such a reunited coparcener' dies, the surviving reunited cupartener' shall, at the time of the subsequent partition, make over the share of the deceased coparcener to the Son that may have been born to the deceased after his death, from a Wife in whom signs of pregnancy were not perceptible at the time of the Husband's death. In Case no such Son is born to the deceased, the surviving 'reunited coparcener shall himself take that share, which shall not go to the Wife or Daughter of the deceased. To this rule (A) that the reunited coparcener shall take the share of the reunited coparcenar', the text adds an exception—(B) 'Sodarasya for sodarah', 'the uterine Brother shaú deal thus with the share of the uterine Brother';--the words 'samsgstinaḥ' ('of the reunited woparcener) and '8amsratī' ('the rewuted coparcener) have to be construed with this second sentence also; 80 that the meaning of this second ·INHERITANCE PARTITION 295 What has been said above is in full accord with the following text of Hanu (9.216): sentence is that when a reunited uterine Brother dies, his share shall be given to his posthumous Son, by the surviving reunited uterine Brother; and if there is no Son, the surviving reunited uterine Brother shall take the share of the dead reunited uterine Brother'.--Thus then, in a case where the reunion' has been among several Brothers--some uterine, some Step-brothers,—it is the uterine Brothers who shall receive the share of the dead reunited uterine Brother,--not the Step-Brothers, even though they were reunited coparceners. It is in this sense that the second sentence (B) is an exception to the first (A)-(Mitākṣarā). [On this, the Bālninbhattī has the following uc tes:--The explanation provided by the Mitākşarā sets aside those given by the older writers. "What is meant is as follows:—When there are three or more Reuniter Coparceners, if one of the Brothers dies after his Wife has conceived, and partition among the survivors is found necessary, and is carried out while the fact of the pregnancy_is still uncertain or unknown,--if a Son happen to be born subsequently, his Father's share is to be given to this Son; if no such Son is born, the said share is to be divided among the surviving Reunited Coparceners.] It has been declared that then a man dies without a Son, his property goes to his Wife and others. The present text lays down an exception to that rule.- (A) If a Reunited Coparcener dies, his share shall go to his surviving Reunited Coparrener, not to his Wife and others.-(B) If a Son who was in his Mother's womb at the time of his Father's death is born after the death of the Reunited Coparcener, the share of this deceased person shall be given to that Son-(Viramitrodaja-Tīkā on Yajñavalkya). If a Reunited Coparcener dies, his property shall be taken by the other Reunited Coparcener,--and the uterine Brother shall take the property of the uterine Brother; -i.e. in a case where the uterine Brother and the Step-brother are both Reunited Coparccners of the deceased,—the property of the deceased shall go to the uterine Brother-(l'iradaratnāknra, p. 601). If a Reunited Copurcener dies, his surviving Reunited Coparcener shall give the dead man's share to his Son.-In a general way the fact being reunited is the ground for one coparcener taking the property of another--(Vivādachandra 25.1-5).-In a case where the Father has become reunited with one of his Sons, the Father's share, on his death, shall be taken by that reunited Son, not by those who had not been reunited with him, but had remained separate.—The Smrtisāra also holds the same opinion (Vivādachandra 29.1-3). The property that has been divided and again combined is called 'sams?sta', reunited property'; one who owns such property is the sams?ştī', 'reunited coparcener'.-If one of the Reunited Coparceners dies, without leaving a son or Grandson, even though his Wife may be alive,-his property goes to his surviving Reunited Covarcener. If there are several surviving Reunited Coparceners, they shall divide the property among themselves and support the Widow. This reunion? is possible only with one's Father, Brother or Uncle; as declared by Byhaspati (Text No. 1059).-If, however, the Wife of the deceased coparcener should give birth to a posthumous Son, they shall give to that Son, the share of the deceased. Further, the property of a Reunited Coparcener is not to be taken by any and every Reunited Coparcener; it goes only to that Reunited Coparcener who is the uterine Brother of the deceased-(wadana pārijāta, pp. 676-677).-The essence of the whole law on this subject is as follows:-(a) In a case where the Sonless deceased has no freunited Step-brothers, his property shall be taken by that uterine Brother of his who may have been reunited' with him ;-) If there is no reunited uterine Brother, the property goes to that Step-brother of his who may have been reunited with him; and in this case if the Step-brothers belong to the same or to different castes, the property shall be divided among them in the proportion of 4, 3, 2, 1;- (c) in a case where among the Reunited coparceners, there are uterine Brothers as trellas Step-brother, the former shall take the property ;-)in a case where the uterine Brothers are not reunited, while the Step-brothers are reunited, both, the uterine As well as the Step-brothers, shall receive the property :-(e) if from among the uterine Brothers, some are reunited, and some not reunited, then only those will receive property who fulfill both the conditions of being uterine and reunited. In all cases the Widow receives her maintenance. The distinction made between Brothers born of the same Mother and those born of different Mothers has to be made also between Uncles who are the Father's uterine Brothers and those who are ·VIVĀDACHISTAMANI 1001 :—'Ifa S-nin horn after partition, he shall receive the property of the F::!:Tony; rr if any others be reunited with him, he shall share it with B. 361). is Stepoti ops :-surh is the opinion of some people. But that is not right; rerause the text -jaks of the uterine Brother' taking the property of the uterine Brodier"; and there is no reason for extending the connotation of the term 'Brother Triinurijītil, ?'p. 081-851). What is meant is that the property of a reunited' Brother is to be taken lys his reunited' Brother,-nut by his Wife or others-(Smrtichandrikā, p. 702). If one of the Pitunited C'opirceners dies, his property shall be given by his surviving Rrunittil'nunrcener to the posthumous Son born to the former from a Jother in when vigus of pregnancy had not heen perceived at the time of partition: in case there is nv) such horn, the surviving Reunited Coprrcener shall himself take the prsperty, which shall not go to the dead man's Wife or other relatives. His Wives and unmarried Daughters are to receive maintenance-(Paräsharumādhava, This test i..dicat the fact that the term 'bhrātſ stands for the uterine Brother as well as for the Step-brother--(Dāyabhāga, p. 191). If any one among the Reunited Coparceners dies without leaving a Sun or Grandson, the property would appear to devolve upon his 'Wife, Daughter, etc. etc.? according to the general rule. It is to this rule that the present text provides an exception. The meaning is that the property of a Reunited Coparcener shall be takeri by his Reuniteil Cojarcener, not by his Wifeor other relations. The next sentence, 'solarnya t1 sodarah' sets up an exception to the rule stated in the first Rentenre: the terms osrstinnk' and 'sumarsit' have to be construed with this second tntence also; sn that relat in nicant is as follows:-111) the reunite liitrine Brother shall give the share of the dead Brother to the latter's $0.1:6) in case there is no Sonar Grandson or Great-grandsız «of the cleưeased Brother, lie shall take tle property himself;-(c) in case among the Reunitint Cloparcencrs, some are uterino Brothers and some are not uterine Brothers, the property of the deceased shall go to the reunited uterine Brothers, not to the othersiriramitrornya, p. 677). This trxt shows that in some cases, even a Stop-brother's rights may be equal to tlum aftue utrrine Brother; if the forner is a Reunited Coparcener, while the latter is not So-Sortituttın I, p. 19). This is an exception to the general rule propounded by Yājňavalkya regarding the 'Wife, Daughters, etc.' sureceding to the property of the Souless man. The meaning is as follows:- What entitles one to inherit the property of a Sonless man is the fact of his having been reunited' with him.-l'uñunesh zaru, Jadana and others hare held the view that the present text refers to cases where the deceased las loſt 10 Son (or Grands or Great-gramuson; ard consequently on the death of one sih persat out of a numler of reuniter copacencrs, his property shall be taken by his surviving reinital cop.arener, even when his Wife and other relations are there. But this is open to question. In fact, the present text has no reference to the dead man being Sonless; if the qualification Sonless' were regarded as understood, the result would be that, of two Sons, or of a Son and a Grandson,-one of wliom is reunited' with the Father, and the other is not both would be entitled to the same share. Hence if'Sonless' were understood here as a necessay qualification, this text could have no hearing upon a deceased Reunited Coparcener who dies leaving Sons. And all this would be contrary to popular usage. In fact, the first line of the text contains two propositions: (a) The property of one (lying while reunited is taken by the surviving Reunited Coparcener;-(6) if there is a competition between two Reunited Coparceners, one of whom is the uterine Brother and the other the Step-brother-then, the reunited uterine Brother takes the property in question. The words 'sodarasya tu sodurak' (6) is an exception to the general rule 'samsýstinaḥ samsgstā' (a); and the latter words are to be taken also along with the former two words 'sodarasya tu sodarah'.—The second line of the text is an independent sentence; it refers to a case where when a Reunited Coparcener has died, his Wife was pregnant, which however was not perceptible at the time, and therefore his property was divided among his surviving Reunited Coporceners ;-in such a case, if a Son is subsequently born, the surviving Reunited Coparconer (such as the Uncle of the posthumous šon) should hand over to that son the share of the deceased. But if no such Son is born, then the surviving Reunited Coparcener should take that share for himself.—Here the mere fact of being the Son determines the right to take the share of the deceased Father, and not ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 297 [This text has been quoted and commented upon already, see Text No.1006.] The second half of this text has made it clear that it is the Reunited Son who is entitled to the Father's property; whence the only right deduction is that it is only in the absence of the same Reunited Son, that the not-reunited Son can be entitled to it. It is for this same reason that it has been declared that [10671The Son born before partition has no right over the property of the Father's share,—and the one born after partition has no right over his Brother's share'-(Brhaspati 25.18).* the fact of being born after partition among the surviving Reunited Coparceners. To suppose the latter to be the determining factor serves no useful purpose and is cumbrous and leads to the absurd contingency that if the Son were born to the Reunited Coparcener in a distant country, before partition,—and that fact was known to the Reunited Coparceners,--then, that Son would not be entitled to receive his Father's property. The right view therefore is that the Son born before partition, even though not reunited with the Father, should receive his Father's share from the Reunited Uncle-(Tyavahāramayûkha, pp. 147-148). [After having offered the same explanation as the Chintānaại]-It will not be right to argue that, according to the rule Paitāmahancha pitryanchn, etc., the property should go to all the coparceners'.--Because that right has been set aside by the previous partition.--The conclusion, therefore, is that the Father's share goes to the Sons born after the partition,-if there are no such Sons, then it goes to the Sons reunited with the Father;- if there are no such reunited Sons, it goes to the reunited uterine Brothers; not to the unreunited Son. This is what has been declared by Vanu (Text Yo. 1006 above)-(Fibhāgasāra, 17-2-9). What is meant is this :- When a member of a joint family dies, his coparcener should make over his property to his child; if there is no child, then the property goes to the coparcener himself. 'The uterine Brother will deal, etc. etc.'; i.e. When the uterine Brother has died and has left no Son or Father or Mother--(Dāyanirnaya 7.1-10). * Some people take this test as only elucidating what has gone in the preceding text (Yājña. 2.138).-If there is a uterine Brother, the Step-brother can never receive the property, even though he be reunited; while the uterine Brother would receive it, even though he be not-reunited-(Tishvarūpa). What has been asserted affirmatively in the preceding text (Yājña. 2.138) is affirmed negatively in the present text; the meaning of which is quite clear.- The second line is in answer to the question as to what shall be done in a case where the Step-brother is reunited, and the uterine Brother is not-reunited. The meaning is that, even though he be not-reunited, the uterine Brother shall take the property, not the Step-brother, even though he be reunited. 'Reunited' is meant to be a qualification of the Step-brother, which is implied by the particle 'api'. Hence the meaning comes to be this:-If there is a person fulfilling both the conditions of being uterine and being reunited, then he shall receive the property ;-when, however, the condition of being reunited is fulfilled by the Step-brother, then it is the character of being uterine that should determine the right to the property, not that of being reunited (Aparärka). In a case where a Sonless Reunited Coparcener (reunited with a Step-brother says the Balambhattī) has died, and has left a Step-brother reunited with him and also a uterine Brother not reunited with him,-both these shall divide his property between themselves. The present text provides reasons for this conclusion: (1) the Step-brother who is reunited shall receive the property, but (2) the Step-brother who is not-reunited shall not receive the property (the reading being 'nānyodaryo dhanam harēt"). By these affirmative and negative propositions, what is meant is that, (a) in the case of the Step-brother, it is the character of being reunited that entitles him to receive the property;the term 'asamsrstī', 'not-reunited' (which, in this explanation, has been construed with the first line as qualifying anyodaryaħ', 'non-uterine Brother') is to be construed with the second sentence also; which thus means that-(6) even a person who is not-reunited shall receive the property of one who may be reunited with someone else ;-and as to who is such a person, the answer is that it is the 'sodaryah', the uterine Brother. What this sentence declares is that the character of being the uterine Brother is the reason for the property being taken ·VIVĀDACHIXTĀJANI [This als ha: been quoted above as Text No. 1007 above, where tid it-tie Britiier who is not-reunited.--The term 'anamer:sti', which has been airls taki with 50/liyah' (the uterine Brother) is to be taken again also with lest senterat , which has qualifying anyanitsjah' (one born (of an ther Alother); and vitl 21 Enir' adıltd, this last se.tence would mea't that 'the Step-brother alone silall.. i take the property. Thus through the force of the particles 'api' and 'eva', La call cume's to be that is a case where the uterine Brother is not-reuniteil and the Strip-urther is reunitail, the property is to divided between th: two; because path of the two persuns fulfill one of the two conditions of the title [the uterine Brutier fulfilling the unition of being uterine and the Step-hrithrr, that of being reunitul). Tlus has been made clear in Janu (9.210_212)-(Jiucrsarā). Tin Bilbhattī, in sitting forth the final conclusion, reproducns the remarks * Priiteluair jāta, on the Text Yo. 1065.] In a ras when the uterine Brother and the Step-brother are both reunitesi Sith the deceased, the proprrty of the deceased shall go to the fornier, nnt to the latter. The Stand line supplies the reason for this: when a Reunited Coparcener has died leaving an Son or Wife or Daughter, etc., his property shall be taken by his utrrie Brother, rven though he be not among the reunited (oparıeners of the [formadotel; ami $ long as even surh a uterine Brother is there, the Step-brother shall rint receive the property.-Even when brith, the uterine Brother and the Stepbrother, are reunited, the prior claim of the uterine Brother is to the comparative neamexs of his relationship to the deceased. The partiele upi cha'is meant to include what Pashiatria han said to the effe, -t that-s long as an undivided uterine Brother there, the proparty shall 1100 grs to the Wife or other relations of the deceased'. In these two texts of Yüjineuillyn, the particle 'tr'las en rexilier tre times.- the first precludry thr Wife and others froin the intimritare, the secou precludes kh reunitorl copter 741* ak tlp Un arvi the rest, and the third preces the nution that the indiviilal Step-Biruthor is not entitled to the property_(l'iramitrodaya-Ţikä on Fājnurulkyı). What this text means is as follows:-*ven though rrumitru, the Step-brother rloes not receive the property if a uteris Brother is there, evin though not-reunited : while annetli ritene Brothers, he alors wall reculve it whe, has been reunited, hot any other, -t turthstanding his norint character. When however there are nu uterizu. Brothers at all, the property shall go to such Step-brothers as have been prezident, not to others (Veithätithi on Janu 9.212). This text lays down what is to be done in a case when one of the Reunited parceners has died, leaving nne uterine Brother not-reunited with him, and a Steprutier reunited with him.-- (1) The first sentence is un voilrun dhanam harēt 12897}">T', 'the Step-urther shall not take the firo perty if he has been not-reunited'; and this purpositiu asserts that tie Step-brother can take the property only if he has inden rennited.—(2) The term 'asamaşstī', 'not-reunited', has to be construies! ulse with what ollutts, so that the meaning of the second sentenre would be that ereu oue wld is not-runited may take the property, who is that person ?-- the answer is soilurynh', 'the uterine Bruther'. This second sentence asserts that a pers in this wot-renniter may take the property if he fulfills the condition of being the uterine Brother..So that both the persons,—the Step-brotier fulfilling the condition of being reunited, and the uterine Brother, fulfilling the condition of beiny uterint, -fulfilling the conditions precedent to the taking nf the property, both of them are entitled to receive it. The reading 'nânyodaryo dhanam hurēt' is not satis. factory; but it gives the same sense -(l'irādaratnākara, pp. 604-6115). In a case when the Step-brother is reunited and the uterine Brothor is notreunited, both of them shall share the property. The first sentenro is anyodarya) samarx san samstaţi dhanam harēt', 'the Step-brother, if rounited, shall receive the piroperty of the Reunited Coparcener':-the second sentene is 'nānyodaryaḥ ri810insrsti alanan harēt', 'the Step-brother who is not-reunited shall not receive the property '; Be that the idea is confirmed that what entitles the Step-brother to receive the property is the fact of his being reunited.The term "asamsrsti', 'not-reunited', is to be construed both ways; so that we also get the statement that-'the uterine Brother, even though not-reunited, shall take the property -The clause "nänyamaterial represents the third sentence, which means that-'among unreunited C'opardeners, other than the Father, it is the uterine Brother alone that can take the property, not any one born of different Mothers. Some people read 'nānyodaryo dhanam harit'; but the meaning remains the same (l'itādachandra 25.2-6).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 299 The following might be urged-'If such be the law, there in a case where a man has become separated from his Sons, and then reunited with (2) Anyodarya)', the Step-brother,--if reunited, shall take the property ;- (6) the Step-brother, if not-reunited, shall not take the property.--The sentence beginning with anyodaryaḥ' and ending with usannsrstī' means that 'what makes the Step-brother entitled to receive the property is the fact of his being reunited. The term 'not-reunited' is to be construed both ways,--30 that the next sentence we obtain is 'usamsrstī api chādanyāt sodaryaḥ", which means that even though not-reunited, the uterine Brother shall take the property. This means that what makes the unreunited uterine Bruther entitled to rereive the property is the fact of his being uterine The meaning of the last clause--'nānyanātrjaḥ' is that in a case when the uterine Brother is not-reunited, and the Step-brother is reunited, the uterine Brother shall receive share in the property by virtue of being the uterine Brother, and the Step-brother also shall receive a share by virtue of his being reunited-adunapārijāta, pp. 676-677). The first line refers to cases where the deceased has left a uterino Brother- (Smſtichandrikā, p. 703). It goes on to set forth the explanations provided by the litākṣarā and the Vadana pārijāta and then proceeds to continue it as follows:- The meaning that has been deduced with great ingenuity is not expressed by the words at all. The most reasonable way is to take the texts of Danu and Yājñavalkya in their ordinary sense and to reconcile them by taking them as pertaining to different topics; janu's text being taken as pertaining to cases where there are both moveable and immoveable properties, and fājñaralkya's text as pertaining to cases where there is moreable property only, or immoveable property only (Smộtichandrikā, pp. 705-706). The Step-brother shall receive the property of his Step-brother if he has been reunited with him, not, if he has been not-reunited.—The uterine Brother may receive the property of his uterine Brother, even though he be not-reunited, and the property shall not be taken by the reunited Step-brother only--(Parăsharamādħava, p. 362). Some people explain the second line as follows:-'In a case where there are reunited Step-brother and unreunited uterine Brothers, the property shall be taken by the unreunited uterine Brothers, not by the Step-brothers, even though reunited; Jlanu's text (9.211)-which lays down that the Reunited Stepbrothers and the unreunited uterine Brothers are all entitled to share the property, -should be taken as applying to cases where there are both kinds of property, moveable and immoveable; and the text of Yājñazalkya (the present one) as applying to cases when there is only moveable property or only immoveable property.- People may accept which of the above explanations they think proper-(Parā. sharamālhora, p. 363). What is meant is that the Step-brother, if reunited, should be the first to receive the property, --not that he alone shall take it. The question arising as to whether while receiving it first, he shall preclude the uterine Brother, or he shall share the property with him,--the answer to this is given in the second line, the meaning being that *the uterine Brother, even though not-reunited, shall receive the property, and it is the Step-brother who will get it, only if reunited'.-What is meant is that the property is to be shared between the unreunited uterine Brother and the Reunited Step-brother. It is with this view that the author has used the terms 'api-cha'.-- Some people have taken this text as amplifying what has gone in the preceding text. --But this is most improper. As in that case, what was intended to be said having been already said in the present text, the preceding text would be entirely superfluous. In reality, what the present text means is as follows:-(a) That Step-brother who is reunited is to take the property, even when there is a uterine Brother who is not-reunited; (b) the Step-brother shall not take it, if he is not-reunited'. Then the question arising regarding the rights of the uterine Brother, the answer is given in the second line :'(c) Even though not-reunited, the uterine Brother shall receive the property, and the reunited Step-brother shall not take the whole of it; it shall be shared by both. This is exactly what has been declared by Manu (9.212) (Dāyabhāga, pp. 193–203). What is stated here is that, in a case where there is a reunited Step-brother and also a uterine Brother, the property shall be shared by both. The term 'asansystī' is to be construed both ways; as also the term 'samsrstah' (what is read for'sodaraḥ') which latter term means 'uterine Brother in the first sentence, and 'reuniterl' in the second sentence (qualifying 'anyamātſjah"). An eva' has to be understood after 'anyamātsjah'. --The meaning thus comes to be as follows:-(a) 'The Step-brother ·:300 PITĀDACHINTAMANI lis Brother.--if lie does not beget any other Sons, and dies, his property vould go to the reunited Brother, not to his Son who had been separated and not rezisteri.' rall receive the property if he has been reunited; (6) the Step-brother shall not receive the property if he has been not-reunited: similarly, (c) the uterine Brother shall receive the property eren when not-reunited, much more when reunited ; and (11) even when reuniter the Step-brnther alone shall not receive the property, he hall share it with the uterine Brother, even when the latter is rrot-reunited'. The upshot thus is-in) in a case where there is an unreunited uterine Brother and a reunited Step-brother, the property of this deceased Sonless Brother shall be shared rqually by them;--() in case the uterine Brother also has been reunited, then he alone shall take the entire property.--The Masculine Gender in the terms samsrstī' and the rest is not meant to be significant; that is why Ianu has declared the ‘uterine Sisters' also to be entitled to receive the property (9.210)--(Piramitrodaya, p. 678). The Step brother shall receive the property only if he has been reunited; but the uterine Brother shall get it even if not-reunited.--In a case, between the uterine Brother and the Step-brother, where ach one fulfills only one of the two conditions- of being uterine and being reunited, the property shall be divided between them: but not so when the Step-brother is not-reunited (thus fulfills neither of the two ronditions); this is what is meant by “samsrsto nanyamātſjah'; which means that when the reunited uterine Brother is there, the Step-brother shall not receive the property, even though he may be reunited; i.e. the reunited uterine Brother alone shall receive the property: as he would be fulfulling both the conditions which would make his claims stronger than those of the Step-brother who would be fulfilling only one condition. The view of Shūlapāņi Mahārahopārlkyūju, as expressed in his Dipakalika commentary on Tajñavalkya, is as follows:- Even though not-reunited, the uterine Brother shall receive the property, not the Step-brother even though reunited.—The purpose served by this text is only to assert the claims of the unreunited uterine Brother-(Smrtitattra II, pp. 191-195). In & case when there is an unreunited uterine Brother and a Reunited Stepbrother, the property is to be divided between them. Here the terms anyodarya' and 'anya mātsjah' stand not for the Step-brother only, but also for the Uncle anil others. If these latter were not meant, then there rould be no point in including thern under the categury of 'Reunited Coparceners':- The term "asamarptı-api' is to be construed both ways; and the term samsrstaḥ' (i.e. for sodarah') is to be repeated once in the sense of reunited' and then in the sense of uterine Brother'; in the former case, the particle 'api' is to be understood after samsrstaḥ', and at the end of the text, the particle era' is to be taken as understood.--Thus the following propositions are deduced from the text:-(A) A non-uterine Coparcener-i.e. Wife, Father, Grandfather, Step-brother, [incle-shall take the property, if reunited; thus what entitles the non-uterine Copercener to the property is his reunion.-(B) The uterine Coparcener (uterine Brother) shall take the property, even though notreuniten: his title resting on his uterine character.-(0) The non-uterine Coparcener alone shall not take the property, even though he be reunited; the property is to be divided between the uterine Brother (unreunited) and the non-uterine Coparcener (reunited), one being entitled through being uterine and other through being reunited. This is exactly what has been made clear by Janu 9.211-212-(Vyava. hāramnyūkha, pp. 148-149). Anyamātrjaħ'-a coparcener other than the uterine Brother—(Vibhāgasāra 18.1-6). (lt) In a case where the uterine Brother is not-reunited and the non-uterine Coparvener is reunited-who is to get the property? (0) In a case where there is a uterine Brother and a non-uterine Coparcener,-both unreunited who is to get it?-These are the two questions answered in this text: (A) The meaning of the first half is as follows: A non-uterine coparcener is to get it only if he had been reunited to the deceased ; according to the previous text, the uterine Brother would succeed even when not-reunited; so that taking the two texts together it follows that in a case where there is an unreunited uterine Brother and a reunited nonuterine Coparcener, the property is to be divided between them; but if the nonuterine Coparcener also is not reunited, then he does not receive the property, at all.--(B) The meaning of the second half of the text is that in a case where there is & reunited storine Brother, the whole property shall go to him,-nothing to the nonuterine Coporcener, even though this latter also may have been reunited-(Daya. nirnaya 7.2-3).--The Law on this subject may be thus summed up :-First of all .

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 301 Yes; that would be so. In regard to a case where the deceased has left a reunited Step-brother, and a uterine Brother not-reunited,--says Yājñaralkya (2.139) [1068)The non-uterine coparcener, shall take the property of a non-uterine coparcener, if reunited, not if not-reunited; as for the uterine coparcener he shall take the property, even though not-reunited; not so the coparcener born of another Mother.'-[Several digests, including the litākşarā, read 'sams?stah' in place of 'sodarah', but explain it as meaning sodarah, the uterine Brother; so the meaning of the text remains the same.] The sentence is to be broken up and construed and interpreted as follows:--The non-uterine Brother shall take the property of a non-uterine Brother, if he has been reunited with him, not if he has not been not-reunited ; but the uterine Brother shall take the property, even though he may be not-reunited' ;-the reading 'nūnyodaryo dhanam harēt' (in place of 'nānyodarya-dhanam harēt) makes the construction easier ;- not so the Brother born of another Mother' is only reiterative of what has gone before.-Thus then, what is meant is that the source of the right of the non-uterine Brother over the property in question lies in his being reunited, while that of the uterine Brother lies in his being uterine. The meaning of the sentence cannot be that even though reunited, the non-uterine Brother cannot take the property of the non-uterine Brother'; firstly, because such a meaning would be repugnant to the construction, and secondly because the text, which is apparently based upon equity, would (if explained as suggested) have to be assumed as having its sole support in some supposed Vedic text. Vārada (13.24) [10691A) 'The share of Reunited Coparceners is held to belong to the Reunited Coparceners themselves; (B) in other cases, it goes to those entitled to inherit it; (C) in the case of those leaving no offspring, it will go to others.' Tēsāmēra'-i.e. to the Reunited Coparceners themselves. Atonyathā', 'in other cases'-i.e. where there are no Reunited Coparceners;-that share goes to 'tadamshabhājaħ' 'those entitled to inherit it', -that the Sons. Nirbījēşu'-in the case of the Reunited Coparceners dying without children, - it will go to others'-i.e. to those not-reunited. The first sentence does not mean that whatever was in the possession of each coparcener while they were reunited should, when so declared, be left with him, when the subsequent partition takes place' ;-because, in the presence of the principle that during Reunion, they are all equal owners, such an assertion as the one suggested could serve no practical purpose [lit. could serve only a transcendental purpose].* & comes the uterine Brother;-if there is no uterine Brother, then the non-uterine come in;-as between the Reunited and the Unreunited uterine Brothers, the property goes to the former ;-as between the reunited non-uterine Coparcener and the unreunited non-uterine Coparcener, it goes to the former;-as between the reunited non-uterine Coparcener and the unreunited uterine Brother, the property is to be equally divided;-as between the Reunited uterine Brother and the Reunited non-uterine Coparcener, the property goes to the former--(Dāyanirnaya 8.1–8). * 'Atonyathā'-in the event of there being no Reunited Coparceners.- 'Nirbējēşu' those leaving no issue.—'Itarān'-i.e. to those not entitled to inherit and those not reunited.— Iyāt'--the share should go.-The Pārijāta has adopted the reading 'atonyathānamshabhājah'; but this is opposed to many authoritative books, * Atonyathā, etc.'—when there are Reunited Coparceners, the Unreunited Coparceners, in the shape of the Step-brother, etc., shall not receive any share [reading ·302 VIVĀDACHIXTĀJANI Sharkha [Xārada 13.25–27, in other digests) (1070)-(A) If among (Reunited) Brothers, any one should die Sonless, or become a Renunciate, the others shall divide his property among themselves,-tith the exception of the Strīdhana.--(B) They shall make provision for his Wives till their death, in case they remain faithful to their Husband's bed; those not doing so should be cut off from maintenance, and also from that.-(C) If the deceased has left & Daughter, her Father's share shall be set apart for her maintenance; she shall retain that share till her marriage; after marriage, her Husband shall maintain her.' Others' i.e. his Reuwted Coparceners.-Those not doing so'-i.e. those not remaining faithful to the Husband's bed, i.e. becoming unchaste.- 'From that'-i.e. from the Strīdhana; the meaning thus is that in the case of unchaste Widows, it is not only their maintenance that will be cut off, their Strīdhana also shall be taken away from them. The 'Daughter' meant here is one who is not married; hence the meaning—it is necessary to maintain her and do everything for ending with her marriage.* adopted namshabluījnk'). In cases where all the Reunited Coparceners are children, the property shall go to others,-i.e. to such unreunited Co parceners as the Stepbrother and others-Suftichandrikā, pp. 706-707). 'Nirbījéşu' --without children. Itarān iyāt-it should go to persons other than those mentioned. The re-partition among Reunited Cuparceners is to be done by means of the throwing of the dice (Vibhāgasārn, 18.1-7). Téşāmēvam of the Reunited Coparceners only;--'atonyathā' in the absence of Reunited Coparceners;--'amshabhājaħ',-the Son and others.--The meaning is that if the Reunited Member has no issue, his share shall go to others-Dayanirnaya 22.2-1). * This refers to cases of Reunion '-(Smyticharulrikā, p. 681). (B) and (C) lay down what is to be done for the Wives and Daughters of the Reunited Coparcener. The other Reunited Coparceners shall perform the Daughter's marriage and maintain her till then-(Smytichandrikā, p. 702). (A) lays down the right of the Brothers taking the property of a dead Brother, eren in the presence of his Widows. But this refers to the case of Reunited Brothers; lience there is nothing in this that could be regarded as contrary to what has been declared by Yājſavalkya regarding the Wife's prior claim to the property of her childless Husband (Parāslarumādhava, pp. 353-356). (B) The 'Wives'meant here are those who are chaste, but are not keeping the vows of the Widow. According to the Pārijāta however, the Wives' meant here are those belonging to the same caste as the Husband.-'Itarāsu'-i.e. those not faithful to the Husband's bed. Āsamskärāt';-i.e. she shall receive as much of the property as may be required for all the sacramental rites ending with marriage, says the Kalpataru-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 603). On the death of a Reunited Coparcener, such of his Widows as are chaste shall receive maintenance.--'Itarāsu' those that are unchaste.—'Achchhindyāt' - cut off.-'Daughter ? -unmarried.--Asamskārāt'--till marriage—they shall maintain after marriage, her Husband shall maintain her-(Vivādachandra 25.2–10). * Asamskärät - everything, including marriage-(Piramitrodaya, p. 688). This text asserts that even when the Widow is there, the property goes to the Brothers of the deceased—the Widow receiving only maintenance-(Viramitrodaya, p. 632; also Mitākṣarā, p. 729). This refers to Reunited Coparceners(Vyavahāramayūkha, p. 151). This refers to a case where the deceased was either undivided or reunited-(Vyavahāramayükha, p. 139). This refers to such women as have been married, but not in strict accordance with Law (Dayabhäga, p. 168). Among Reunited Brothers, if one becomes a Renunciate or dies, then the other Reunited Brothers shall take his property, his Wife, if chaste, shall be supported; those of his Wives that are not chaste shall not be supported; his unmarried Daughter shall be maintained till she is married-(Vibhāgasāra 18.1–11). her;

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 303 Kātyāyanam [1071)(a) Among Reunited Coparceners, on the death of one, the other Reunited Coparceners shall take his property"; and (b) among Separated Coparceners, on the death of one, the other Separated Coparceners shall take his property;-those receiving the property in either case being such as are entitled to inherit the property of any one among themselves who may die childless." It has been declared here that, 'on the death of one the other takes his property'; to this a qualifying clause has been added—the persons taking the property must be such as are entitled to inherit the property of any one amony themselves who may die childless'; that is they should be persons entitled to receive the share of anyone else who may die without issue. The upshot of the Law on this subject is as follows:-(a) If a Reunited Coparcener dies,-leaving either a Son born after the previous partition, or a Grandson, or a Great-grandson.-these latter shall receive his share in the property :-(b) in case there is no Son or Grandson or Great-grandson, the property goes to such a widow of his as may be fully equipped with all the qualities of chastity and entirely free from all eight forms of intercourse'; the other Widows, if chaste, shall be entitled to maintenance, not to a share in the property;(c) as for the Daughter of the deceased, she shall ke maintained and all her sacraments ending with marriage shall be performed with the property left by the deceased;—(d) the Father of the deceased shall be maintained like the chaste T'idow;-(e) in the absence of all these. the entire property of the deceased shall go to the other Reunited Coparceners; () if among the Reunited Coparceners there are uterine and non-uterine members the property goes to the Reunited uterine (Brother);-(g) if the only Reunited Coparcener is a non-uterine member, and there is a uterine Brother (who is not-reunited),then both of these share the property equally;-(h) if of these two (uterine and non-uterine) only one is there, then that one receives the property;--(i) among Reunited Coparceners, if any one has acquired special property through Learning and other means, after the Reunion,-it shall be shared by all; though, normally, such property is impartible; but the acquirer shall receive two shares, the other Reunited Coparceners receiving one share each.* In the Prakāsha, we have the following text:- [1072] 'In the case of immoveable property, and in the case of property in the shape of bipeds (slaves),- even though the property be selfacquired, there can be no giving or selling without the consent of all the Sons.'t **Nirbīja, etc.'-i.e. they are so related to each other that if any one dies childless, the other will take his property-(Vibhāgasära 18.2-3). † In regard to immoveable property-ancestral as well as self-acquired--one is subservient to the Son and others and the Father's ownership is not absolute (Mitākşarā, p. 611 and Viramitrodaya, p. 532). What is forbidden is the giving and selling-(Dayabhāga, p. 35),- not enjoyment (Vyavahāramayükha, p. 91). This text refers either to the property of Reunited Coparceners or to Joint Property in general; as it is only in regard to these that the Father is not free to do what he likes.--All that is meant is that such giving or selling is not commended (Vibhagasära 19.1-10). In a case where the ancestral property had been lost and has been recovered by the Father by drawing upon the Joint Property-the Father cannot dispose of that property without the consent of his Sons. ‘Arjitam' here means recovered by himself-(Dāyanirnaya 18.2-1).

·304 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI [1073. Those that are born, those that are unborn, those that are in the Tball these require a living, not the right to give or sell.' Thir foilowing is an exception to the above- (107+ Even a single Coparcener can give away or mortgage or sell immoveable property, in times of distress, for the sake of the family; specially for a pious purpose.' That is to say, even a divided member of the family may give away or sell even immoveable property, in times of distress involving the whole family, or for such pious purposes as the marriage of girls and so fortlı,* Janu (Tyāsa in other digests) [1073] "Divided or undirided, all Coparceners are equal, in regard to iminoreable property; and no one person among them has the right to give, mortgage or sell it.' What is meant by this is that when certain Copardeners have become separated, and in regard to any property if it is doubtful whether or not it has been divided, it is advisable, for the removal of this doubt, to secure the consent of the separated Coparcener also.f p. 716). * Wlule the Sons or Grandsulis or Brothers—forming menata-rs of a jout family-art minurs, and as such, not in a position to acrd their consent to any transaktions. if some calamity happen to overtake the whole family, or if it becomes necessary for the purpose of supporting the fainily, or for the purpose of performing certain obligatory Shrāddhns and other rites, even a single Coparcener, --who is qualified to do it.-may give away or murtgage or sell immuveable property -(Vitālienrā, p. 611). Even though the man has been separated from his Coparceners,—and the property is an immoveable one--if there is a calamity upon all Coparceners, -or & Daughter of one of the Coparceners has to be married, then for meeting these cases, even the divided Coparcener may give away or sell the immoveable property-(Fibhāgasāra 18.2-8). tIdhamana' is mortgayiny. This refers to cases where the Coparceners have found it diflicult to make an exactly equal division of the immoveable property and lave therefore agreed to divid- its produce year after year—(Smrtichandrikā, The text should not be taken to mean that any individual Cuparcener has no right to sell or mortgage or give away the property mentioned. Because the ownership'-which consists in being entitled to disposal is there, as in the case of all other property. What the text means is that-'if a Cuparcener, on the strength uf his ownership, wore to sell, or mortgage or give away the property to an undesirable person, he would injure the whole family and thereby incur sin’; it does not mean that the transaction itself would be invalid-(Dāyabhāga, p. 34). The case contemplated here is one in which the ownership of each Coparcener extends over the entire property, it is for this reason that the giving, etc. of it by any one without the consent of others has been forbidden ; -when it is done for the individual's personal benefit(Smytitattva II, p. 164).--In cases where the Coparcouers have been separated, but their individual shares in the property have not been specifically allocated, the property remains, to that extent, joint; and it follows froin this that no single Coparcener has the right to sell or mortgage or give it away. When the property has been definitely partitioned and the shares specifically allocated, the said transactions would be perfectly valid in regard to those shares. In reality, however, even in the case of separated Coparceners, the obtaining of the consent of others would serve the purpose of stopping any disputes that might otherwise arise in regard to the property-this consent, in this case, standing on the same footing is the consent of neighbours and kinsmen- (Smſtituttva II, p. 176). [After quoting the opinion of the Smộtitattra]--This same appears to be the view of the Mitākgarā also, which has defined 'vibhāga', 'Partition', as'the allocation ·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 305 There is the following declaration- [1076] 'Land passes (from one person to another) under six conditions: (1) the consent of the village, (2) the consent of paternal relations, (3) the consent of neighbours, (4) the consent of Coparceners, (5) the giving of gold, and (6) the giving of water.' Here, the consent of the village, the Coparceners and the paternal relations has been mentioned with a view to the making of the gift (transfer) public; the consent of the neighbours is for the purpose of precluding disputes regarding the boundary;--and the giving of gold and water has been laid down in view of the following text- [1077) There should be no selling of immoveable property; it may be mortgaged with consent';- where there is prohibition (of selling land); and yet in the following text- [1078] 'He who accepts the gift of land, and he who makes that gift, both incur merit by the act, and are sure to go to Heaven',- the giving of land has been highly commended.—Hence the conclusion is that, even when selling (land), one should make gifts of gold and water; so that the selling also becomes an act of gift.--This is what is meant by the Text No. 1076 above (where the giving of gold and water are laid down)." of the ownership of an individual Coparcener over one part of the property which consists of several parts over which extends the ownership of several persons'. The question for consideration is—Does the ownership of the owners over a number of articles constituting Property extend over each particular article sererally or over all of them collectively? We hold that it extends over every one of the articles sererally(Vīrametrodaya, pp. 549-550).-Though it is well known that nu single Coparcener has the right, with the consent of others, to sell or mortgage or give away any part of the joint property of any kind,--yet it has been reiterated here with special reference to immoveable property, with a view to indicating its special importance. In the case of undivided Coparceners, it is just possible that after the lapse of some time, doubts might arise as to their having been separated or joint before a disputed transaction; and for the settling of this point, partition would have to be proved by witnesses and other means. If, therefore, the consent of the Coparceners has been obtained, the transaction becomes validated for all time_(Vīramitrodaya, p. 585). The text prohibits the selling, etc. by non-separated members of a joint family (Dāyanirnaya 16.2-5). * The consent of the 'village' has been held to be essential in view of the injunction that 'the acceptance of gifts should be done openly, specially in the case of immoveable property', and it is meant for the purpose of making the transaction widely known (and irrevocable); it is not meant that without such consent, the gift is invalid.The consent of neighbours' is required for the purpose of removing all disputes regarding boundaries. --The necessity of the consent of 'relatives has been already emphasised.—By giving gold and water'.—The selling of immoveable property having been deprecated, and its giving away having been commended, whenever such property is sold, the selling should be in the manner of a gift, and as such it should be accompanied with the gift of gold and water-(Mitākgarā, p. 612). After the property has been partitioned, the consent of the Coparceners to any gift that may be made is required only for the purpose of setting aside all doubts regarding the boundaries of divided and undivided property; and it is necessary in the same manner as the consent of the village, neighbours and the rest.“ Dāyāda' here stands for the Daughter's Sons, etc., the paternal relations-'Jñāti'.having been mentioned separately.--"Gold and water-even when land is sold, the selling should, in the manner of gifts, be accompanied with the giving of gold and water; -Bays Vijñānēshvara(Smrtitattva II, pp. 166-167). 20 ·306 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI SECTION (P)-PROOFS OF PARTITION On this subject, says Vārada (13.36-40) (1079) When the subject of partition is in doubt, the settlement of the dispute among Coparceners shall be founded on the testimony of kinsinen, the deed of partition and the separate transaction of business.* [1080] 'Among undivided Brothers, there is a single (common) performance of religious duties; after division, each has to perform his duties separately.'t [1081) 'Giving and receiving Cattle, Food, Houses, Fields and acceptance (of mortgages),-as also Religious Acts with Cooked Food, Income and Expenditure,-should be understood to be separate among divided (Brothers).- [1082] “The acts of giving of evidence, standing surety, giving and receiving gifts,-may be done among themselves, by divided Brothers, not by undivided ones.' [1083] “Those Coparceners among whom these transactions are carried on should be regarded as divided, even in the absence of a written docu. ment.'1 Sandēha'-dispute.-Dāyadānām'--among Coparceners--in regard to 'vibhāga', Partition itself,- one party saying that there has been no partition between us', also in regard to the .dharma', character of the Partition-the disputant saying all of our party has not been partitioned';-the decision in such matters shall be arrived at either jñātibhiḥ'—through witnesses in the shape of kinsmen, or through the deed of partition, -or by means of reasonings based upon such indica. tion of facts as the separate business-transactions and so forth-(Vyavahāramayukha, p. 132). The special mention of Kingmen' shows that so long as Kinsmen are available as witnesses, other witnesses shall not be admitted.- Karya'-Agriculture, etc. the separate carrying on of these-(Vāramitrodaya, p. 176). ** Dharma'-Vaishvadeva and other offerings-(Smſtichandrikā, p. 718; also Vitādaratnākara, p. 607). Separate Agriculture and other operations and separate performance of the Five Great Sacrifices, etc. have been declared here to be indicative of separation- (Mitäksarā, p. 872). Here the term 'bhrātīņām. (Brothers) stands not for Brothers only, but for 'members of a joint family' in general. Hence the rule applies to all undivided members of a joint family, such as Father, Grandfather, Son, Grandson, Paternal Uncle, Nephew and so forth-(Vyavahāramayükha, p. 132). Every act-temporal or spiritual—is done with the help of property that has not been partitioned; hence the reward of the act accrues to all Coparceners- (Vīramitrodaya, p. 549; and Smytitattva II, p. 164). I'Grahanam'a acceptance of gifts. The meaning is that the fact of partition is proved by the existence of these transactions.-Pravartante' are carried on- (Smrtichandrika, p. 718). These are proofs indicative of Partition-(Aparārka, p. 756; and Mitākṣarā, p. 872). Agama'-income of wealth.–Vyaya'-expenditure of wealth.-Such income and expenditure are meant here as cannot be accounted for otherwise than on the basis of Partition--(Vivādaratnākara, p. 607). If one Brother makes & gift and another accepts it; or if their houses and income and expenditure are separately kept;- or when a loan is advanced by one, the other acts as witness cr surety,or when loan-transactions are carried on between themselves, or if one of the Brothers, having bought an article for trading purposes, sells it to the other, any one of these transactions can be carried on only among divided persons; hence on the strength of these the Partition becomes proved. $ 20B ·INHERITAXCE-PARTITION 307 of 6 Vibhāyadharma'-Dharma-subject--in the shape Vibhagam Partition.-- Kinsmen'—those who actually saw the partition being made. Bhāgalekhya' is the Aksapatra, the Deed of Partition..Prthak-Kārya'- separate business-transactions, relating to income and expenditure, which is a condition invariably concomitant with division.-Dharma'-such religious duties as the Vaishradera-offering.--Dünagrahaņam', giving and receiving of gifts, independently of one another.— Pashu'-buying and selling, etc. of cattle. Anna'--producing of food-grains separately. Gyha'-separate household.-Kşetra'-separate fields.--- Parigraha' acceptance of mortgage, etc.—Pākadharma -religious rites performed with cooked food, e.g. the Parvana-Shrāddha.-Agama'-income, acquisition of wealth.—'V'yaya'- expenditure of wealth. So also when one acts as a witness to the debt-transactions of the other, or stands surety for him,- or if one receives gifts made by the other,-then these two persons should be regarded as divided'. Yajñaralkya (2.150) [1083] 'If there is a doubt regarding Partition, the fact of the partition should be regarded as proved by kinsmen, witnesses and documents, as also by separate households and lands." [The other reading for · Vibhagasya tu sandehê' being T'ibhāgan ihnarē bandhu. 'Yautakaiḥ'-separate; the word being derived from the root 'yu' which connotes non-mixing; hence the meaning is that the fact of the Partition should be deduced from the persons having separate houses and lands; that is to say, separate houses and lands, which cannot be otherwise accounted for, lend to the presumption that there has been partition.* -It is not meant that all these conditions should be present before Partition can be regarded as provad-(Dayabhāga, pp. 231-232). Dana' and 'grahana' stand for the giving and receiving of loans. These same are reiterated in the second text-(Vyavahāramayükha, p. 135). The prohibition of mutual giving, etc. among undivided Coparceners is quite equitable; even before the gift is made, the ownership of the recipient would, in this case, be already there; so that there could be nc .giving' or receiving at all.- Similarly with giving evidence and standing surety (the interests of the Coparceners being identical)-(Smrtitattva II, p. 164). * Yautakaih'--separate (Vivādaratnākara, p. 607). This text explains what should be done if any one of the Coparceners denies the partition.--If the partition is denied, it should be proved by the testimony of kinsmen i.e. the Maternal Uncle and other relatives, or by witnesses, or documents that might have been executed setting forth the details of the partition. Says Byhaspati~-When Brothers are divided, they should execute a document proclaiming the division and they should also have unimpeachable witnesses to the transaction'. ---"Grhaksetrayautaka' are separate houses, separate lands and separate marriage. portions-(Vishvarūpo). When there is a dispute as to whether or not division has taken place, it is to be proved by means of Kinsmen and others; also by 'yautaka'- separate houses, lands, etc. Houses and lands' stand for all those evidences of separation that have been described by Närada (Texts 1079 et seq.).. If Brothers and other Coparceners do all this publicly, they may be presumed to be separate in business- (A parärka). The fact of the Partition may be ascertained through Jñätis [explained by the Bälambhatti as neutral persons belonging to the same caste as the parties concerned], through witnesses and through documentami.e. the deed of partition; as also through houses and lands being separate (yautaka)-(Mitäksarā). The fact of the Partition is to be ascertained by the Judge and others, through Jñātis-paternal kinsmen,--witnesses-such as have been prescribed, who would bring testimony to the fact of partition,—and documents-deed of partition; kouses and lands', which are 'yautaka', i.e. belonging to each Coparcener as exclusively as their marriage-portions (Vīramitrodaya-Tikä on Yājñavalkya).

·308 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Again (Yajravalkya 2.52) [10811 Among Brothers, between Husband and Wife, and between Father and Son,-no surety-ship, or loan-transaction, or bearing witnesses can be permitted, so long as they are not separated.' That is to say, before partition, there can be no transaction of suretyship and the rest between the sets of persons mentioned. The following objection may be raised-' As between Husband and Wife, there can be no partition, on account of the declaration of Apastamba, that- [1085] There can be no partition between Husband and Wife". The answer to this is as follows:-Such Vedic texts as [1086] "The Husband and Wife should instal the Fire'-point out that the performance of such specified acts, the Husband and Wife are entitled jointly. Similarly, in accordance with the following texts- [1087] 'One initiates the Sacrificer with the Belt and his Wife with the Rope';- [1088] 'The Sacrificer's Wife looks into the Butter';- [1089] "The Sacrificer ties up the Kusha-bundle';-and so forththere are a number of Shrauta acts—to be performed with the help of the duly Consecrated Fire (which is installed jointly by the Husband and Wife), and also according to the text that [1090] "The Smärta rites are to be performed in the Matrimonial Fire', etc. etc. there are certain Smärta acts, like the Āvasathya and other Home-offerings which are performed with the help of the Matrimonial Fire which is kindled by the Husband and Wife conjointly; and to the performance of both these sets of acts, the Husband and Wife are entitled jointly. Similarly to the enjoyment of the reward following from the performance of these acts, they are jointly entitled ; as is clearly indicated by such texts as- (1091) 'In Heaven the two attain imperishable effulgence',- By these the fact of partition should be regarded as proved, -also by 'separate houses and lands'-(Parāsharamadhava, p. 386). The most important witnesses are the Jñātis—i.e. the Sapindas; in the absence of these, other witnesses who are impartial. All these are not meant to be of equal importance; if they had been so meant then the single term 'witness' would have beon sufficient-(Dāyabhāga, p. 229). 'Jnāti'-Father's relatives; witnesses-who are impartial. As compared with ordinary witnesses, the relations would be more intimate with the parties and as such more likely to know of the separate performance of Shraddhas and such other circumstances indicative of partition. Lekhyāna'-by the deed of partition. By all these means, the fact of partition may be ascertained;-also 'yautakaiḥ grhaksetrain-by separate houses and lands—(Vīramitrodaya, p. 715). If, after the lapse of some time, some one denies the partition, the fact can be got at through Jhātis--paternal relatives—, witnesses, of the prescribed qualifications, and documents—i.e. the dood of partition;-as also through separated houses and Lands. That is, it is to be ascertained by the fact of the parties carrying on their agricultural and other operations separately, and also performing this five great sacrifices and other religious acts separately--(Madanapārijāta, p. 689), Here Yājñoralkya describes the means of proving the partition in the event of some one denying it.Yautakaiņ'separate;-qualifies "grhakşetrain', houses and lands-Vyavaharamayukha, p. 132).

·INHERITANCE-PARTITION 309 which appear in the same context.—But such is not the case with such acts as Charity and Public Benefactions, which do not need the help of the said Fires. Hence there is not the least possibility of Apastamba's text meaning that there can be no partition of wealth between Husband and Wife'; specially as that text of Āpastamba occurs in the section dealing with the subject of the Wife looking into the clarified butter'; and also because the said is followed by the assertion that by reason of their Marriage there is a companionship between the Husband and Wife in regard to religious acts and also to the rewards of spiritual merits.' Says the objector-If that be so, then, as under the Adhikarana on the Wife (ullīmāmsā Sutra ... ), it has been asserted that “there is (Fife's ownership also over the Husband's property”, --it follows that there would have been partition between them if there were no scriptural prohibition of it in the shape of Āpāstamba's text). Not so; because, please understand that, the life can have no property at all; as declared by Manu (8.416) that [1092] “The Wife, the Slave and the Son have no property of their own.'- As regards the Mināmsă-Adhikaruna quoted, all that that does is to establish the joint liability of the Husband and Wife torrards the performance of sacrifices; and it does not set aside the declaration that 'the Wife can have no property'. Because the said Adhikaraña represents a conclusion arrived at through reasoning and hence it cannot set aside an authoritative verbal declaration. Finally, as regards the fact that there is partition between Husband and Wife, it is proved by the declaration that [1093] 'WVives should be made equal sharers' (see Text No. 880 above).-- So says the Ratnākara.* * Among Brothers and the rest,--so long as they have not separated—there can be no such transactions as Loans, standing Surety, or bearing witness, for each other. It is in accordance with this that it may be determined whether or not the parties are separated.-The mention of the 'Husband and Wife', between whom no separation is possible, serves the purpose of emphasising the fact that among other Coparceners also,--so long as they have not separated there can be no such transactions-(Vishvarūpa). Among Brothers, etc., so long as their property has not been divided, surettyship and other transactions among themselves is forbidden. Dampati'- Husband and Wife. Prātibhāvya'-Suretyship; under which the person who guarantees the presence or trustworthiness or payment on behalf of another person is called the 'Surety':-Tbe epithet avibhakté", so long as they are not divided', applies to 'Brothers and to "Father and Son', -not to the Husband and Wife'; as there can be no division of property between these two-the Wife being the owner of her Husband's property simply by virtue of being his Frife; hence the property that is common between Husband and Wife cannot be divided- (Aparärka). "Prātibhāvyan-Suretyship.-Among Brothers, between Husband and Wife, and between Father and Son, ---80 long as their property has not been divided, i.e. prior to partition,-suretyship, bearing witnesses, and loan-transactions have been forbidden by Manu and others; and the reason for this lies in the fact that their assets are common; and in the case of suretyship and bearing witness, there is a chance, under certain contingencies of their ending in the Surety or the Witness having to pay the amount in dispute.-This prohibition, however, is only in regard to such transactions being entered into without mutual consent; with mutual consent, suretyship and other transactions do take place between undivided members of the family also; after partition of course it takes place even without mutual consent.--An objection is raised here. As between Husband and Wife, it is not right to speak of “division" (separation); as no separation is possible between them. That there can be no division of property between Husband and Wife has been shown by Apastamba who says. "There can be no division between Husband and Wife"-The answer to this is as follows:--The absence of division ·310 VIVĂDACHIXTAMANI Brhnepati [1094 Those who keep their income, expenditure, wealth, separate and engage in mutual transactions of money-lending and trademare divided among themselves.' > spoken of hy Āpastamba is only with reference to such acts and then results as are performed with the help of the Shrauta and Smarta Fires,--not to all acts, nor to property. That such is the meaning of Apastamba's text is clear from the fact that, after having said that there can be no division between Husband and Wife', he goes to give the reason--tecause of the marriage-rite there is companionship between them in regard to acts and the consequent merit and rewards resulting therefrom.. The meaning of this is that-because companionship in regard to acts, from the time of marriage onwards, is found to be asserted in the Shruti-in such texts as the Husband and Wife should instal the Fire-therefore from their joint liability towards the Installing of Fire, it follows that their liability towards all those act int are performed with the help of that Fi is Iso joint;- similarly by virtue of such Smrti-texts as-all Smārta rites are to be performed in the Matrimonial Fire-their liability towards all acts performed with the help of the Matrimonial Fire also must be regarded as joint':- From this it follows that in regard to acts other than these performed with the said Shrauta and Smärta Fires.- e.g. such acts as works of public philanthropythe liability of the Husband and the Wife is distinct.—Then again, in regard to the reward of spiritual merit also,- such as Heaven and the like-te find it declared that the claims of the Husband and Wife are joint,-_in such texts as 'Diri jyoti. etc.'. From this also it follows that in regard to their actions in the performance of which their liability is joint, their claims to their rewards also must be joint. But that cannot be so in regard to the claims of the Wife to the reward of such acts of philanthropy as she may have done with the Husband's permission.__*But'-says the objector—we find the joint character of their property also asserted in the subsequent texts of A pastamba;- such as “80 also in regard to the ownership of property--if during the Husband's absence the Wife makes gifts, she is not to be regarded as a thief". -True; but all that these texts show is the Wife's ownership over the propertyand not that there can be no partition between her and her Husband. Because the meaning of the texts is that—The Wife has ownership over the propertywhy 1-becauso, if during her Husband's absence she makes necessary gifts, feeds guests and so forth, she is not regarded as a thief; and because it is so, therefore the Wife also has ownership orer the property; as otherwise her said acts would involve misappropriation and theft'.-From all this it follows that there can be separation of the Wife's property also: but only with the Husband's consent, not merely by her wish. This has been asserted by Tajňavalkya himself (under Text No. 880 above)--(Vitāksarā). This text mentions the persons to whom loans should not be advanced; and in that connection forbids other things also.- Avibhakti'-when there has been no division;-among Brothers, between Husband and Wife, and between Father and Son,- suretyship, loans, bearing witness in matters of dispute,--all this is not permitted by the Smytis. The particle atha' is meant to include "Uncle and Nephew' and such others; and the particle cha' is meant to include Reunited Coparceners; and the particle'éva' means that the suretyship, etc. are never valid; the particle simply serves to fill up the metre; the particle tu' serves to exclude cases where there is consent, and also where the property involved belongs exclusively to one of the members concerned, and is not joint. Hence in cases where the other member has accorded his consent, the Son can be the surety or witness for the Father and so forth. Similarly, even though the Husband and Wife may not have been separated, yet loan-transactions would be permissible on the basis of such property as forms part of the Wife's Doury, for instance (Vīramitrodaya-Tīkā on Yājñavalkya). It follows that the person advancing the loan must have been separated from the person receiving it (Smrtichandrikā, p. 718). The term 'mutually has to be added.--Though Āpastamba has asserted that 'there can be no division between Husband and Wife', yet, in view of the declaration of Yajnavalkya himself, to the effect that If a man is dividing his property equally, he should make his Wives equal sharers'-it is clear that Yājñavalleya has permitted the division between Husband and Wife, under certain circumstances; and it is in ·INHERITANCE-PABTITION 311 That is, those who carry on, among themselves, transactions of buying, selling, etc., should be regarded as 'divided' among themselves.* The method of 'Division' (Separation) is thus described by Nārada (13.42) [1095] 'If there are several descendants of one man (who are divided), they are separate in the matter of the performance of religious duties and of this sense that we have to take the term 'Husband and Wife' in the present context; so that there may be no inconsistency-(Vivādaratnakara, pp. 607-608). So long as they are not separated. [After reproducing the discussion regarding Apastamba's declaration]—It is for these reasons that in the performance of works of philanthropy,--which do not require the Consecrated Fire,--the liability of the Husband and Wife is not joint. That is the reason why, even in the absence of the Wife, the man is entitled to perform such acts; and there is nothing to preclude even an unmarried man from performing such acts—(Dvaitanirnaya, pp. 39-10). (a) In view of the assertion of A pastamba to the effect that 'no division is possible between the Husband and the Wife, as also in regard to the rewards of Merit and Demerit',—there can be no division between Husband and Wife; and (b) in the section dealing with the Wife', the Wife's ownership has been restricted solely to the property of her living Husband;-and (c) there is the declaration of the Shraddhaviveka that 'Property is common between Husband and Wife'-where 'Common' means belonging to both.—Though all this is so, yet the assertion of Yājñavalkya—that 'if the man is making an equal division, he should make the Wives equal sharers clearly indicates that when the man is dividing his property among his Sons, he has to assign a share to his (Sonless) Wife also; and it is in this sense that the present text has mentioned 'Husband and Wife'- Some people have held that. What Apastamba has asserted relates only to the liability to such acts as can be performed with Consecrated Fire only':--This is not right. In fact, the denial that there is no division between Husband and Wife' presupposes a corresponding affirmation; which indicates the ownership of both Husband and Wife over the same property. Otherwise, if the ownership of both were not there, there could be no possibility of Division, and hence there could be no denial of such possibility. What is meant by Manu's text to the effect that 'the Slave, the Son and the TFife have no property', -is that these persons are not free to spend without the permission of their Master-(Smrtitattra II, pp. 179-180). What is meant is that Suretyship and other transactions among undivided Coparceners have been forbidden,- and hence disputes among them should be settled by persons other than themselves.--As between Husband and Wife, it is only in matters relating to Shrauta and Smārta rites, that their title has been declared to be joint; in regard to Property, therefore, division is certainly possible between them; a denial of this would be contrary to many texts(Vibhāgasāra 20.1-1). * Vanikpatham'-Trade-(4 parārka, p. 757). 'Kusīdam-lending money on interest.-Panikpatham-Trade.- Parasparam' -goes with both 'Kusidam' and 'Vanikpatham'-(Smrtichandrikā, p. 719). 'Parasparam'-independently of one another, not conjointly.-The term pathak is to be construed with the second line also. [The meaning of the text, according to this explanation, would be this—“Those who keep their income, expenditure and wealth separate, and carry on separate money-landing and trade independently of one another, not jointly, are divided')-(Vivādaratnākara, p. 608). In the absence of witnesses and other proofs, partition is to be regarded as proved by such fact as money-lending, trade and so forth-(Parăsharamādhava, p. 386). The compound 'prthagāyavyayadhanāḥ' is to be expounded as "those whose income, expenditure and wealth are separate :- Kusīdam'-money-lending on interest.–Vanikpatham-Trade.- Parasparam'-one Brother being the Creditor, another Debtor, one sells and the other buys; and so forth. On the strength of these facts, which cannot be explained except on the basis of partition, partition is to be regarded as established— Vīramitrodaya, p. 717). Vanikpatham'-trades (for 'dhana', this work adopts the reading 'dhāna', which means mortgaging]-V yavahāramayukha, p. 135). Those who carry on these transactions among themselves should be regarded as divided; because such transactions are the only effects of Division (Separation) (Vibhāgasāra 20.1-5). 6 ·312 VITĀDACHINTAMANI business transactions, and while properly fulfilling all spiritual and terporal functions, are not in agreement in relation to business-dealings.' That is, those who have become 'separated', and have not become *reunited', (1) their 'performance of religious duties', in the shape of the Faishcadēva and other offerings,--(2) 'business-transactions', in the shape of money-lending and the like, -(3) 'temporal functions', in the shape of supporting the family, etc.,—(4) spiritual functions', in the shape of service and devotion,--all this they become entitled to do separately.* The same authority describes the effect of the said 'Division' (Separation) in the following words- [1096] 'In case they would wish to give away or sell off their own respective shares, they would be free to do all this; as they are masters of their own property--(Nārada 13.43). * No significance attaches to the qualification descendants of one man', or to the adjective "several'.-Pythagdharmāḥ'--performing their Five Great Sacrifices and other acts separately.--Pythakkriyāḥ -carrying on money-lending and other kinds of business separately.-Prthakkarma, etc. [this is the reading adopted by all the Digests, excepts the Chintāmaņi which alone reads "Samyakkarma, etc. '}-having separate arrangements for the care of children, for agricultural operations and for other kinds of business. Na chét, etc.'—if they are not operating jointly-(Vivādaratnākara, pp. 608-609). The meaning is as follows:-If there are many descendants of one man, separated in several ways.-o.g. (a) performing the Agnihotra and other religious acts requiring the expenditure of wealth, separately; (6) carrying on agricultural and other temporal business by means of their separated wealth; (c) possessing separate utensils and other implements of work; (d) they are not in agreement in regard to business-dealings, and each goes on with his business regardless of the others; they are independent masters of their own property_(Smrtichandrikā, pp. 715-716). There are several Brothers born of the same person who are divided', this being understood (according to some).–Pythagdharmaḥ' --whose dharma, in the shape of the worshipping of Devas and Pitrs is carried on separately; dharma' does not stand for the Agnihotra and the like, as these are performed separately even by Brothers who are not divided.-Pythakkriyāḥ - this refers to the ordinary temporal acts. Prthakkarmagunopētāḥ - those who have separate implements (gunas) of such acts (karma) as pounding and the like; i.e. implements like pestle, mortar, stone-slabs and so forth.-'Na chét, etc. - they do not act with each other's consent-(Vāramitrodaya, pp. 713-714). The meaning is as follows;-If the Brothers are so circumstanced that-a) without each other's consent, they carry on religious performances involving the expenditure of wealth, (6) carry on such business as agriculture and the like which require separate capital, (c) they make separate profits and losses, and (d) they are opposed to each other in regard to social and village matters, then they should be regarded as 'divided' (separate)-(Aparārka, p. 757). Several Brothers born of one Father, when separated-(a) may perform such acts of public utility as cost money, sven without each other's consent; (b) may carry on agriculture and such other business which require capital;-(c) may possess separate pestles, mortars and other household-implements; (d) they may ignore each other in carrying on their business, if they are not in agreement- (Parāsharamadhava, p. 384). 'Dharma'-the Five Great Sacrifices.--'Kriya'-trading and other secular business.---'Karmaguna' -working implements, household-utensils, etc.-_When these are separate, it indicates that the Brothers have become divided'. + Here sale and other transactions have been sanctioned in a general way. The statement of the reason 2-*as they are masters of their own property-implies that this refers to immoveable property also; as, otherwise, this statement would be meaningless-(Vāramitrodaya, p. 587).-If these men wish to give away or sellor pledge or mortgage their shares, they can do as they wish. If the separated Brothers give their consent to these transactions, the business proceeds smoothly; but even if they do not give their consent, that does not vitiate the transaction. The reason for this is they are masters of their own property'.-That is, mutual ·INHERITANCE PARTITION 313 SECTION (Q)-RELATIVE IMPORTANCE AND AUTHORITY OF TRANSACTIONS Says Yajnavalkya (2.23) [1097] 'In all disputes greater authority attaches to the later transaction.- In the case of pledge, gifts and sales, however, it is the earlier one that is stronger.'* The transactions' meant here (to be compared) are those belonging to the same category. It is for this reason that Brhaspati has declared as follows: [1098] ‘Having borrowed money at the rate of 2 per cent, if the Debtor subsequently admits the rate of 5 per cent,-then this latter rate of interest shall stand, as it was the latter to be adopted.' That is, having borrowed money at the rate of 2 per cent, if the Debtor, on account of the exigencies of his business, has accepted the rate of 5 per cent, then the later transaction is the more authoritative one. The two tran. sactions in this case belong to the same category of 'Interest-rate'; and hence naturally the greater authority attaches to the later transaction. There are exceptions to this general rule: In the cases of pledge and the rest, it is the other way. For instance, when an article has been pledged for a second time, or given away for a second time, or sold for a secord time, all these later transactions-pledge, gift and sale shall be set aside. This is only by way of illustration; if a thing is sold after it has been given away, the sale has to be set aside, on the ground that it was done by one who had no ownership over it. It is for this reason that we have the following declaration- [1099] "If a sale or gift has been made by one who is not the rightful owner of the thing concerned, it should be annulled: such is the rule of business' -(Manu 8.199). [Vide Text No. 173 above.] Brhaspati- [1100] 'In & case where there have been several successive transactions, each succeeding one annuls the preceding one; hence it is the last transaction which, being stronger than the previous ones, is really effective.'- ch consent is necessary only in regard to joint property, not in regard to what belongs to any one person exclusively-(Vīramitrodaya, pp. 713-714). "Divided' Brothers may or may not give away or sell their own shares, just as they please; because, being separated, they are masters of their own property (Paräsharamadhava, p. 384). The meaning is that the Brothers, thus divided, can give away or sell their property without each other's consent-(Vyavahāramayükha, p. 136). * For example, if the Defendant succeeds in proving the authenticity of repayment,-which is later than the Lending,-he wins the suit; eren though the Plaintiff may have succeeded in proving the Lending. That is, the Plaintiff sues the Defendant for the recovery of a Loan,—the Defendant answers that he has already repaid it;-both parties succeed in proving their allegations,—the decree lies with the Defendant-(Mitākṣarā).-- Aparārka cites a different example: The Creditor advanced a Loan, in the first instance, on interest at the rate of 5 per cent, but subsequently he reduces it to 2 per cent;-his claim, if decreed, is in accordance with this latter rate. Vishvarūpa & interpretation of these two rules is entirely different; He proposes two explanations -(1)-(a) In all disputes, the last-mentioned proofthat is ordeal is the strongest; (b) in the matter of mortgage, etc. the first -i.e. documentary evidence is the strongest; or (2)(a) among conflicting documents, the latest is the most authoritative; (6) in the case of mortgage, eto. the earliest is the most authoritative.

·314 VIVĂDACHIYTĀMANI (1101] 'If having placed an article in Deposit, one pledges the same subsequentir.-or having pledged it, he places it in deposit subsequently, -or sells it,-in all these cases it is the later transaction that prevails.' The term 'bandha' stands here for transaction. Hence what is meant is that the preceding transaction is weaker and the succeeding one stronger. This rule is illustrated in the second text.-The later Pledge annuls the previous Deposit; and the later Sale annuls the previous Deposit.-Deposit consists in merely entrusting (the article to another man), while 'Pledge is placing it under his influence; hence the latter is 'stronger'; while as compared to Pledge, the transaction of Sale is still more authoritative; as it consists of the entire cessation of the ownership (of the previous holder); while Mortgage or Pledge does not bring about the ownership (of the Pledgee or the Mortgagee); hence this is not so effectively authoritative'. Hence if the Selling, which tends to destroy the previous ownership, is done again (after the previous sale of the same thing),-it is the previous sale that remains effective; and the reason for this lies in the fact that the creation of the absolute ownership (by the later sale) is obstructed by the alreadyexisting absolute ownership brought about by the previous sale. Similarly in the case of repledging of a thing which has been already pledged. As between the pledging that does not set aside the previous ownership, and the pledging that does set aside the previous ownership, the latter is the more effective.- Such is the sense of the texts. This is the correct explanation; and the custom too is the samesays the Ratnākara algo. In regard to a case where the interval between the transactions of Pledging, Selling and Giving away is very small,--and it cannot be ascertained which one came before the other, the same authority says as follows:- [1102] 'If the Selling, Pledging and the Acceptance of gift have all been done on the same day,-and all the three are under dispute, what shall be the decision? The conclusion on this point is that all the three transactions are valid; and the three parties concerned shall divide the property among themselves, in proportion to their respective shares; the first two in the ratio of their respective claims and the Donee receiving the full third part.' That is, the Pledgee, the Purchaser and the Donee shall divide the property concerned among themselves, in equal shares.-The opinion of the Halāyudha however is that in such a case, the claims of the Pledgee are the weakest, as the transaction of Pledging is the weakest of the lot.

·CHAPTER XVIII GAMBLING AND BETTING Says Manu (9.223) [1103] 'That which is played with inanimate things is Gambling, while that which is played with animate things is Betting.' Inanimate things'-e.g. the Dice. Byhaspati (26.3) [1104] 'When Birds, Rams, Bulls or other animals are made to fight against one another, after a wager has been laid on them, it is called Betting.' Manu (9.221 et seq. (1105] 'Gambling and Betting are public Theft and should be suppressed. One who does Gambling or Betting, or helps others to do it all these the King shall extirpate; as also Shüdras masquerading as Twiceborn men.'* Kātyāyana- 11106] 'One should never have recourse to Gambling, as it feeds on anger and greed, leads to evil, is cruel and is destructive of people's wealth. Inasmuch as quarrel is produced by Gambling, and it is like poison issuing from the mouth of the snake,--the King should suppress this potent source of evil in the kingdom.' Brhaspati (26.1) [1107] 'Gambling has been forbidden by Manu, because it is subversive of truth, honesty and wealth. It has been permitted by others, under such conditions as may bring revenue to the King. It shall be carried on under the supervision of the Superintendent of Gaming Houses; as it helps in the detection of thieves. Such is the Law relating to Gambling and Betting with animate things.” That is, Gambling has been forbidden by Vanu, but has been permitted by others, for the purpose of detecting thieves; but even so, it should be carried on only under the supervision of the Superintendent of Gaming Houses, appointed by the King. Yajñavalkya (2.203) [1108] 'Inasmuch as it helps in the detection of thieves, Gambling should be carried on under the supervision of an officer. This is to be understood as the rule regarding Gambling and Betting with animals.' * According to Aparārka and Mitākṣarā (on Yājña. 2.202), and Viramirodaya, p. 721,--all this refers to such Gambling and Betting as are not authorised by the King, and not supervised by the King's officers specially appointed for the purpose; and also to those that are accompanied by fraud and cheating.

·316 VIVĀDACHIXTĀJANI *Ekamukham'-i.e. supervised by the King's officer in the person of the Superintendent of Gaming Houses.* Brhaspati (26.1) [1109] 'When any one is defeated in a prize fight (Betting) between two animals, the owner of that animal shall pay the Bet that had been laid upon it.' Brhaspati (26.5)- [1110] "The Wager (Bet) shall be laid openly; and persons cheating at Gambling shall be banished.' * Glaha' is the Gambling wager; it should be made openly, in public. Varada [1111] ‘If & man gambles without authorisation by the King, he shall not get his stake, and he shall be punished.'- (1112] 'What has been staked in joke, or without knowledge of the Kingshall not be received by the winner; and he shall be punished.-Or, it may be permitted, and he may obtain the stake, but only once.' [1113] The Superintendent may accept from the gamblers small gifts of food and drink; but avoid repetition of the same.' Viyama' here stands for Punishment. (1114] 'Those wicked men who use false dice at games, or rob the King of his dues, or cheat by making false reckonings,--are called Cheats: and they deserve to be punished.' Vişnu (1115] 'Those who gamble with false dice should have their hands cut oft; those who cheat at Gambling shall have their two fingers cut off.' Upadhi' is cheating - Sandamsha'—the two fingers--the Thumb and the Index finger. Yājñavalkya (2.202)- [1116] 'Those who play with false dice or cheat at the game should be branded and banished.' † Whether in a particular case, there shall be fine, or branding or cutting off of two fingers or cutting off of hands or banishment will depend upon the seriousness or otherwise of the offence of the cheats at Gambling. Kätyāyana [1117] 'If one does not act up to the rules laid down by the King,—that wicked man should be despised and punished, as disobeying the King's Commands.' 3 * The Superintendent of Gaming Houses shall have Gambling carried on at one place, for the purpose of detecting men of bad livelihood. For Gambling in an unauthorised place, there shall be a fine of 12 Panas-(Arthashāstra 3.20). f'Branded' --with the sign of the dog's foot—(Piramitrodaya, p. 721).

·SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER DEALING WITH PUNISHMENTS Says Vanu (7.14 et seq.) [1118] 'For the King's sake, the Lord created Punishment, which is the Law born of the Lord Himself, an incarnation of divine glory and the protector of all creatures:- 'It is through fear of him that all beings, moveable as well as immoveable, go to subserve the experiences (of men), and do not swerve from their duties.- "To men who act unlawfully, he should mete it out appropriately, having carefully considered the time and place, as also the strength and leaning.- That Punishment is the King, the Spirit; that is the Leader and the Ruler; and that has been declared to be the surety for the Law of the Four Stages.- 'Punishment governs all creatures; Punishment alone protects them; Punishment lies awake while all are asleep; the wise ones regard Punishment as the Lau itself.' Again- [1119] 'Where the dark-complexioned and red-eyed Punishment stalks about destroying sins.--there the people are not misled.-provided that the Ruler discerns rightly :-(lanu 7.25). Tadartham'--for his sake.--Dharmam'-Law, i.e. the maintainer of Law; the identification is meant to indicate great regard.-Brahmatējomayan' -incarnation of the glory of primeval Hiranyagarbha. This also is purely eulogistic; the object of which is God Himself.- Rājā" (King)-50 called because of his keeping the people happy (prajāranjanāt).-'Ourasah' (Spirit) because the Supreme Being resides within the heart of all beings.-Nētā", (Leader)--the Governor.- Shasita'-Ruler; one who keeps people within the sphere of their appointed duties.-Jāgarti (lies awake) so called because it serves to suppress thieves and other evil-doers, in the way in which men fully awake do. Wherever the dark-complexioned and red-eyed Punishment-i.e. the Presiding Deity of Punishment-is functioning, there the people prosper ;-provided that the Ruler--the person Governing discerns rightly. Again- [1120] 'Punishment can be administered by one who is pure and true to his word, and acts according to the Law, has good assistants and is wise Manu 7.31). "They declare that King to be the just Governor who is truthful of speech, acts after due consideration, is wise and knows the essence of Virtue, Pleasure and Wealth'-7.36). 'Punishment cannot be justly administered by one who has no Assistant, or who is demented, or avaricious, of undisciplined mind, or addicted to sense-objects-(7.30). $ ·318 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI The King who metes out Punishment in the proper manner prosper's in respect of his three aims; he who is blinded by love, unfair or mean -de-troved by that same Punishment'-(7.27). "Punishment, which is a tremendous force, hard to be controlled by persons with undisciplined minds, destroys the King who has swerred from duty, along with his relations:-(7.28). Then it will afflict his forts and the kingdom, the whole world along with animate and inanimate things,-as also the sages and the deities inhabiting the heavenly regions(7.29). "When meted out properly after due investigation, it makes all people happy; but when meted out without any investigation, it destroys all things'-(7.19). Samiksyakārī', 'acting after due consideration'-i.e. who acts after fully taking into consideration the exigencies of time and place.- Wūdhëna'- demented'; i.e. devoid of imagination.--Akrtabuddhi'-of undisciplined inind', i.e, who has not studied the scriptures.—Kāmāturā', 'blinded by love', -.e. doing what he wishes.-Vişama', 'unfair'-i.e. behaving wrongly, on account of partiality -Sumahat-tejāḥ', 'tremendous force',-i.e. by reason of its sharpness.- Tataḥ', 'then',-i.e. after destroying the King along with his relations.-'Sudhstaḥ, 'meted out properly', i.e. administered fairly and justly. Again [1121] 'If the King did not untiringly mete out Punishment to those who deserve it, the strong would roast the weaker, like fish on the spit; the crow would eat the sacrificial cake; and the dog lick the offering materials; the rights of all ownership would cease to exist and there would be a commixture among the high and low-(Manu 7.20-21). 'Dandyēşu'-- deserving punishment.-Adharottaram-i.e. the condi. tions of superior and inferior would become reversed. Again- [1122] 'It is by Punishment that all people are kept under control; for an absolutely guileless man is hard to find. It is through fear of Punishment that the world subserves the experiences of man'--(7.22). 'It is only when pressed by Punishment that Dêras, Dānavas, Gandharvas, Rākşasas, Birds and Reptiles subserve the experiences of others'-(7.23). *All castes would become corrupt, all barriers would be broken through, and there would be disruption in all spheres, --if there were mistakes in regard to Punishment-(7.24). "To the King who protects his people, accrues the sixth part of the spiritual merit of all beings; another sixth part of their demerit also accrues to him if he fails to protect them (8.304). 'When any one reads the Veda, when any one performs a sacrifice, when any one makes gifts, when any one worships, to the sixth part of each of these the King becomes entitled--by virtue of his properly protecting the people (8.305). The King who, according to the Law, protects all creatures and strikes those who deserve to be struck, offers, day by day, sacrifices at which hundreds of thousands are given away as gifts-(8.306).

·DEALING WITH PUNISHMENTS 319 • Tadartham' (in Text 1118)for the purposes of the King as described in the previous texts of Janu.— Samiksyakāriņam' (in Manu 7.26)-what is meant is that if Punishment is administered with due deliberation, it tends to welfare; otherwise, it brings calamity to the administrator.- * Vibhrama' (anu 7.24) mistakes, in the shape of punishing wrongly or not punishing at all. Räjā'-the King;-thus what is meant is that all this happens to the King who administers thus.—Kāmāturā" (blinded by love)(Manu 7.27)qualifies the person administering Punishment.- • Bandhava', 'Relations here stands for the Son. Thus then (1123] "That King in whose realm there is no thief, no adulterer, no defamer, no criminal, no assaulter,--attains the Regions of Indra'-(Manu 8.386). "The suppression of these five in his own dominions secures to the King paramount sovereignty among his peers and fame in the world (8.387). Thus ends the Vivādachintamani by Hahämahopādhyāya Shri Vāchaspati Vishra.

·No text on this page.

·INDEX .. & Abandoning relations without their becoming outcaste-Fine for (Yajñavalkya, Manu, Shankha), 139. Abhişēcanīya Rite-Fees at the-, 53. Abuse of the first kind, 106; of the second kind, 106; of the worst kind, 106; ---Penalties for—, 106; -Apology for -- reduces the fine (Kātyāyana and Ushanas), 107. Abusing Brāhmaṇa, For-the lower caste should be fined (Manu), 107-108; --Other than a Brāhmana Fine for- (Manu), 107-108; -inferior persons--Fine for-(Yajña. valkya), 107; -on being abused, returning the blow on being struck and striking an assassin attacking is not wrong (Brhaspali), 116. Acharita, explained, 35-36. Accused should be acquitted if he clears himself by ordeals (Brhaspati), 149. Acquisition is a lawful source of property, 61. Action performed with the consent of the master by a slave is valid, 73. Adhibhoga (use of the pledge), 6. Adopted son shall get only the fourth part of a share if a body-born son is born (Vashistha), 263. Adultery, 1; -classed under three grades, each grade explained (Vyāsa, Brhaspati and Nārada), 150-51; -Punishment for-(Manu and Brhaspati), 151; - cases of -(Manu), 152; - in the inverse order (Manu), 153. Adulterating things of high and low valuePunishment for- Advantage is desirable even at some loss, 99. Aggressor—the first-is guilty and shall suffer a heavier punishment (Nārada), 115. Ancestral property should not be given away in its entirety, 60; — which is undivided may be given away with 21 mutual consent only, 61; - when recovered after partition, the father's wish prevails in dividing it, 175–77. Animals, certain to be set free, 104; - not to be penalised for causing damage, 104-105; -should be caught and beaten for trespassing, 105; --small should not be punished for damaging crops, 105. Aparārka, quoted, 138. Īpastamba on the punishment of a ploughman running away from his work, 76. Apostate from renunciation should be the slave of the king, 70. Apprentice, his behaviour towards his master, 68; -whatever work he will do, the produce thereof shall belong to the master, 68. Appropriating a house or a tank by intimidation is punishable, 99. Articles made over to artists for repair, if lost, the artist should be made to pay the price, 43; -- sold, if damaged before its non-deliverance to the purchaser, the seller is responsible, 88; -- not placed at the disposal of the purchaser, if damaged, the seller is to suffer, 89; when sold to one but delivered to another, the seller is to be punished, 90. Artisan, grades of - 55; -defined, 55; -joint concern among the--, 55. Assailant shall be made to pay the expenses incurred in the recovery of the injured limbs (Bphaspati), 114. Assault, verbal, 1; - physical, 1; --kinds of - (Bshaspati), 106; -- of the first grade, fine for (Ibid.), 110; ---by touching another man, fine for (Kätyäyana), 110; -between persons of equal status (Yājñavalkya), 110; -by pulling and trampling upon another (Yajnavalkya), 110- 11; – by catching one by hair, fine for, 111; -by spitting, by urinating - man, 120.

·322 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI son ог and hy breaking winds at the superiors (Manu), 111; -by raising one's hand against another, fine for (Kätyāyana and Yājňavalkya), 111; --by raising a stick against another (llanu), 111; - hy sitting upon the same seat with a high-born per- (Janu), 111; -- by raising gravels, stones, wood-pieces against another (Brhaspati), 111; -- by raising one's foot a weapon against another (Vişnu and Yājñarallya), 111; - by striking a man with bricks, stones, sticks, etc.- Fine form, 112; caused by spitting, urinating, breaking wind against a Brāhmana, fine for (Manu), 114; - caused by catching a Bräh. maņa by hair, legs, beard, the Shüdra should be fined (Ibid.), 114. Assaulting one another in anger by turning weapon (Brhaspati), 112. - B pati), 260; -shall receive the entire ostate (Brahmapurāņa), 263. Bond, 3. Borrowed article, 44. Boundary, should be settled in the month of Jyestha, 93; - trees, 94; - marks, 94; -hidden marks, 94; - to be determined by–, 94-95; should not be determined by any one singly, 95; - if determined singlehanded, it should be done in certain special way, 95; -- marking method of deposition by people, 95; dykes, 96; fixed by river, if any one disturbs, he should be fined, 96; decision in the case where a piece of land has been taken away from one village and given to another by the river or the king, 96; as regards other than land and fields, 97; limit is decided by neighbours in certain cases, 97;line trees--the fruits of the-should go to the two owners, 98; demolishing is a crime and is punishable, 99. Boy above the sixteenth year of age is a major, 28. Brāhmana, rate of interest for 4; -may take whatever belongs to the Shüdra, 73; - should be fined for compelling a twice-born to do servile rork against his will, 74; shall do no mean work, 74; — can never be a slave, nor can be make a Brāhmana his slave, 74; if any one buys or sells he should be punished, 75; -should never be put to death (Manu), 113; -no corporeal punishment for -(Gotama), 131; the nature of punishment for (Kaushika, Gotama, Apastamba, Yajňavalkya, Shankha), 131-32; -his punishment for stealing (Katyayana), 132; - should be punished for receiving gifts from the thieves (Manu), 132; - should be banished for eating garlic, 140; - should not suffer corporeal punishment (Nārada, Yama), 147; - should be fined for approaching & woman of lower caste (Manu), 156; should be punished for having recourse to a Bail for delivery, 42, 44. Bala described, 35-36. Bālarūpa quoted, 268, 271, 284. Bandhu-kinds of -, 284. Bargain-clincher, 90. Baudhāyana on the duty of the king as to the safety of the property of a man who is dead without any heir, 51. Beating for disregarding a teacher or preceptor by certain class of people (Närada), 116. Betting. a head of dispute, 1. Betting is played with animate things (Manu and Brhaspati), 315. Bhrīsyakāra quoted, 103. Bhogalābha Interest, 5. Bhrgu on the means of realising dues from the debtors, 36; on the punishment of a member for doing injury to the property of the Corporation, 85; on returning the purchase after it has been accepted by the purchaser, 92. Body-bom son-alone is the owner of the property and equal to him is the son of the adopted daughter (Brhas. 2ІВ woman. & ·INDEX 323 on 48; on On protected Brāhmana woman (Manu), 158; — should not be killed (Manu), 158; – should be punished for hav. ing recourse to a woman of the lower caste (Manu), 158-59; - should be fined for having intercourse with a prostitute, 163. Brahmapurāna on the cowherd's abandoning a cow in the forest, 83. Branches of a tree spreading over other's plot belong to the owner of the plot, 98. Breaking into the locked room of others is punishable (Yājñavalkya), 138. Breaking and wrongly boring gems is punishable (Manu), 141. Bribe should not be given and if given for any work before should be refunded, 64; defined by Kätyā. yana, 64; -those who live by-shall be punished (Yajnavalkya and Brhaspati), 123; --punishment for taking - (Manu), 143. Bphaspati on the denotation of Debt, - on the recovery of loan, 2;. on the form of interest, 3; on the rates of interest, 3;- on the meaning of Hair-interest, 6: - on the kinds of interest, 7-8, 14; on interest on pot herbs, seeds, sugarcane, salt, oils, liquor, honey, etc., 15; terest on grass, wood, bricks, yarns, bones, skins, etc., 15; -on interest on pledge, 19; -on pledge des. troyed, 20; on the four kinds of surety, 22-24; - on repaying loans, -on repaying debt when the father is unfit, 27; -on debts not valid and not-payable by the grandson, 29; on the repaying of debts by one who takes the property when the son is beset with difficulties, 30; on the repaying of debt incurred for the family purposes by the head of the family, 32; -his explanation of the terms Chhadma, Acharita and Bala, 35; on the meaning of the term Dharma (good faith), 35; on the means of realising dues from the debtors, 36; means of realising the debt when the Principal has become doubled, 37; - on the restoration of the deposit, 41; -on the judicial proceedings in realising the debt, 38; on the payment of the price of the deposit in case the deposit is destroyed by the depositary, 42; — on the punishment of one who would misappro. priate articles or deposits, 43; the position of the purchaser of an article sold without ownership, 46; on the payment of the price to the purchaser by the vendor who loses his case, 46; -in regard to the case when the vendor is not produced, 47; on the mistake committed by purchasing from an unknown person, on cases where buying from the rightful owner also is wrong, 48; on the share of the partner wlio saves the merchandise, 49; profit and loss if incurred through the act of God or the king, to he borne by all the partners, 49; the share of the king to the property of a childless dead man, 51: --re. garding the property of a trader on death, 51; -regarding the property of a Brāhmunce on death, 51; the claim of the dead man's property, on the share of the work done by the kinsmen of the partner when the latter is disabled, 52; - on the loss borne by the partner who has supplied defective implements, 55; on the meaning of the term Artisan, 55; -regarding the share of the head man working jointly, 55; -on the share of the thieves working jointly, 55-56; -regarding what should not be given as a gift, 57; on what may be given as & gift, 59; on the giving away of & dwelling house and lands, 60; the validity of the gift, 61, 63; gifts which may be resumed, 65; on invalid gifts, 65; on the servant's refusing to work after having agreed to work, 67; kinds of servants, 67-68; on the character of an apprentice, 68; -on nature and kinds of Hirelings, 68-69; on 51; on in 25: on -on on on the ·324 VITĀDACHINTAMANI 69: to share the property of a man who dies without a son or a wife and in his absence his mother and then his father shall obtain it (Paițhinasi), 282; - uterine, shall take the share of the reunited coparceners in their absence, 290; - uterine, reunited brothers and cosanguineous sisters shall divide the property equally (Manu), 291-93; -Divided-acti. vities of-, 306-307. Building house on land belonging to another and paying rent, 79. Buyer and seller may return or take back the bought or sold articles within ten days, 89. Buying a thing from an unknown man is a mistake, 48. on On C on - include: zncnager under Hirelings, on the nature of the duties of pupi. apprentice, Hirelings and manager, 69; on rules relating to slavery, 74; on the amount of wages, 75; on the punishment of the employee if he fails to do his work, 76; on the improper action of an employee, 78; - on the pages of the keeper of milch cow, 81; the duty of the cattle-keeper, 82; on Conventions, 84-85; on the banishment of one who is against the Corporation, 86; on cheating the State the royal dues, 86; the share of the members of the Corporation, 86; on the possession of a house, a shop, etc. by a man since the time of its foundation, 97; on the sale of a defective article by the seller, 89; on the time limits of the articles sold, 91; the non-returning of the articles purchased after thorough examination, 92; on boundary marks, 94; -on determining the boundary singlehanded, 95; on the meaning of the term Path, 98; - On the cultivating of the lease-land, 100; on beating the animal for tres. passing, 105. Brother, the most capable shall become the head of the family after the death of the father (Närada), 171; if acquires a property depending upon the joint property that shall be equally divided among all the brothers (Vyāsa), 187; -engaging himself in the business of the family should be enriched by other brothers by presenting food, clothes, conveyance (Nārada), 189; out of their own shares shall perform the sacramental rites by the brother in the absence of the paternal property (Närada), 194; -addicted to evil deeds are not entitled to inherit father's property (Manu), 198; gaged in maintaining the family of another brother shall get the share in the wealth acquired by the latter (Kätyāyana and Närada), 219; - is Calling for help without any reason- Fine for-, 138. Capital punishment for killing another man (Brhaspati), 112; for breaking into & store-house, armoury, temple (Manu), 126; --- for misappropriating the royal dues, 144; for one who not belonging to the royal family aspires to the kingdom (Vişnu), 144; for imitating a king, or too much addicting to amusements, 144; - for those who are addicted to sports reserved for the king, or for talking ill of the king (Kātyāyana), 144; - for forgers of Royal Edicts, for bringing false charges against the State and for slayers of Brāhmanas (Manu), 145; --for & murderer (Kātyāyana and Brhaspati), 146. Carrying away an adorned maiden is punishable (Yajnavalkya), 155; -- a willing maiden of inferior caste is not an offence (Ibid.). Cattle-keeper running away from his work should be beaten with sticks, 76; -should be punished if any damage is done by the cattle to the crops, 102; - and the owner both are faultless in certain cases, 104; - is to be fined for any damage done by the cattle to the crops of others, 104. en- ·INDEX 325 - . Chaining the unchained and unchaining the enchained is punishable like a thief, 127. Chandāla woman-intercourse with her is punishablo (Yajñavalkya), 156. Chandala having recourse to a noble woman should suffer death (Ibid.); - willfully touching superior persons should be punished, 138. Chakra (compound Interest), 5;-vrddhi, (Ibid.). Cheats-described, 316. Chhadma-explained, 35. Child up to the eighth year of his age should be regarded as still in the womb, 28; - is treated as a minor up to the sixteenth year, 28. Commodities should be examined just after the sale, 90; -- should not be sold under certain circumstances, 93. Compound Interest, 7. Concealed property when discovered shall be divided equally (vājñavalkya and Katyāyana), 240-41. Conditions in which a land can pass from one person to another, 305. Confession in the Court-by-punishment is reduced (Nārada), 148. Confidence - Tricksters-enumerated by Pyasa are to be punished (Brhaspati), 123. Confiscation of the property of those king's officers who hamper the business of the suitors (Manu), 143. Conquest is a lawful source of property, 61. Consumption of metals in fire in a regular proportion (Yājñazalkya), 124. Controller of the Household, 69. Conventions, breach of, 1; should be obeyed by all, 85; -explained, 84; - when made, 84. Conversation with a woman for some good reason is not wrong (Manu), 151; -in a solitary place is a crime (Ibid.), 152. Coparceners are all equal in regard to the immoveable property (Manu and Vyāsa), 304; --can singly mortgage or sell immoveable property in distress for the sake of the family, 304. Corporation-advisers of, 84; of the inhabitants of the village, 84; member of them is punished by the king for misappropriating the property of the Corporation, 85; member going out on the business of-shall make over to the Corporation whatever he obtains, 86; the share of the members ofm, 86; -capital of the--,87; every member of the shares in all its assets, 87; of traders, 87. Corporeal Interest, 7. Corporeal punishment, 42-43; for certain class of people (Kätyāyana), 116; - for using false scales, weights, measures, etc. (Shankha), 120-21; - for deceiving people by wearing staff of religion dishonestly (Byhaspati), 123; --for dealing fraudulently with gold and selling improper meat (Yājňavalkya), 123; - for stealing gold, silver, gems (Sharkha and Vişnu), 128-29; for those who acquire the property of thieves (Vārada), 131. Counter-deposit, 44. Com left without the keeper, the fault lies with the owner, 104. Cow grazing at night or during day, the owner is to be fined, 102. Cowherd is to be punished if he abandons the cor in the forest, 83. Credit, 2. Creditor, 2-3, 5, 7, 12, 17-25; Brāhmana, dying without any issue, -should be fined in case he makes the debtor do some mean work for his debts, 36; - should be punished for using force without taking recourse to other means to realise his debts, 36; - should approach the king and prove his claims after which the king should make the debtor to pay the dues and take himself the twentieth part of the claim, 39; loses the interest on the debt if he does not demand it after the due date, 55; -may make the a 34;

·326 VITĀDACHINTAMANI debtor to work for him in liquidation of his debt, 71, Crime differentiated from theft, 136; --forms of -- (Várada and Manu), 136; --getting a -committed by another person or inciting some one to commit a crime, hoth are punishahle (Yājiarnlkya), 147: those who help a man to commit a should be punished variously (Katyā. yana), 147-48. Criminal of the highest degree even when purified by the punishment should not be permitted to associate with the people, 137; - should not be let loose. 146; described, 146. Crops unfenced if damaged hy cattle the keeper should not be punished, 102. Cultivation of waste-land-rates thereof, 100. Cultured people on interest on grains, 17. Cutting off the limb of a low-bom man with which he hurts a superior person of the three higher castes (Manu), 113-14. Customs Duty according to Vashietha, 122; is fixed at the twentieth part on merchandise and at the sixth part on fruits, medicines, meat, honey. etc. (Gotama), 122. Custom-House--for evading & - - the entire stock of the trader is confis. cated (Vişnu), 120. be supported till their marriage (Fajñavalkya), 201; -of the daughters should also get something out of the property of their maternal grandınother, 232; - share among themselves the mother's toilet articles or marriage presents (t'ashistha), 236; is equal to the son (Hanu), 269; - shall inherit the property in the absence of the son (Várada and Brhaspati), 269-70;-to inherit the father's property- Qualifications of (Bphaspati), 270; - unmarried should take the property if her father dies sonless (Parāshara), 271; --in the absence of the property of a sonless person goes to the mother, 271; --her son is entitled to inherit the property of his mother and maternal grand. father (Brhaspati). 272; --her son shall offer cakes to his mother's fixther also, 272. Dāyada stands for the son alone, according to some, 62. Dealing dishonestly with common property is punishable, 139. Death penalty for a Brāhmana should mean tonsure, 158. Death punishment for one who vio. lates an unwilling maiden (Manu), 153. Debt, recovery of —, 1; -meaning of-, 2; - payable and non-payable, 2; -payment of -, 22; -the manner of repaying -,25; -repaying of - when the father has contracted conjointly with others, 27; repaying of -- when contracted by members of the joint family, 27; -- to be repaid by descendants up to the third generation, 26; – to be paid off by the son after the death of his father, only his own share, 27; -what sort of - should not be repaid by the grandson, 28; - caused by winedrinking, gambling, etc. should not be paid by the grandson, 28; - invalid, 28-29; - contracted through lust and anger, 29; -- not admissible in law, 29; to be paid by one who takes the property of the dead man D Daksa on the duty of a king towards an apostate from renunciation, 70. Damages for crops consumed by cows should be paid by the owner of the cow, 104. Damaging of a water-drinking booth is punishable (Manu), 130; - the goods of others-for-the culprit shall pay the value equal to the loss (Manu), 137. Dancers-rules relating to their share in their joint work, 55. Daughters are entitled to the mother's property, 170; -of invalids should ·INDEX 327 case or who takes his wife when the son is beset with difficulties, 30; - to be paid by one who takes the dead man's property or his wife, 30-31; - to be paid by the son alone when the property of the dead man does not rest with any other person, 31; to be paid by other persons like the son, 32; - to be paid by the head of the family when it has been incurred for the family purposes by anybody, 32; - to be paid by all those who inherit the property in a joint family, 32; incurred by the son are payable by the father only when approved by the latter. 32; contracted by the woman shall not be paid by the husband and the son, 32; -- incurred by the wires of washermen, hunters, herdsmen and liquor-distillers are to be paid by their husbands or their sons, 32; - incurred by a woman who is the predominant factor in the family should be paid by her husband or her son, 32; incurred for the pur. poses of the family even by the wife of a Brāhmann and others have to be paid by the head of the family, - due to the Kșattriyas and others are to be received by the king when the former dies without a progeny, 34; - incurred by idiots, the insane and by those who have been long absent from home shall be paid hy those who have taken their wives or assets, 34; --realisation of- by trick, 35; -means of getting the payment of 35; - to be paid by & Brāhmana when reduced in circumstances by instalments, 35; -realisation of — by good faith, 35; -realisation of- by force, 36; --realisation of - by moral pressure, 36; -spiritdistiller and similar others should be made to pay their --- by making them work at the creditor's place, -& Brāhmana should be made to pay up-gradually, 36; - to be realised from the king, the master and the Brāhmana by means of moral suasion, 36; the proper course to realise is to request the debtor to pay up, 36; - contracted before the witnesses should be discharged also in the presence of the witnesses, 39; --moral -- is one that is promised but not given, 6:9; --payment of —, 65; -- contracted in the name of the Corporation, 86; — in. curred by the father after partition shall be paid by the son born after partition, 256. Debtor-his great-grandson should pay off the loan, 7; - should be caught before the assembly of men to pay off his duties, 35: should execute a bond on the basis of compound Interest when he is unable to pay off his debt, 37; shall pay a fine of 5 p.c. when debt has been admitted, 38; - claiming judicial proceedings in a doubtful should not be pressed, 38; -- shall pay off the dues to the creditor out of the proceedings of the sale of the merchandise, 39; - should pay off the dues of the Vedic scholar first, 39; -his assets are to be divided equally among the creditors and the balance distributed as Interest according to the priority of the claims, 39. Defaming a man by various allegations is punishable (Tylīsa), 108; a king is punishable (Yājňavalkya), 109. Defiling a maiden of inferior caste his fingers should be cut off (Vājña. valkya), 155. Deliverance of assets, 23. Demolishing the wall, filling up the ditch, breaking up the gates--one should be killed (Manu), 143. Deposit-kinds of 40; - bailed, 40; - destroying of -, 40;-restoration of —, 41; -secret -, 42; -mutual 42; on behalf of a person gone abroad, 44; -made with commercial motive, 44; cannot be given as gift, 57. Depositary should provide a surety, 40;-should be fined if he derives profit from it without the depositor's consent, 42. 33; - 36;

·328 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI Depriving animals of their masculinity is panisnable (Tişnu), 116; - small animals of their virility is punishable, 139. Detective orticer, 134-35. Detection of criminals--process of- (Iājienralkya and Brhaspati), 148- 49. Destroying embryo of a slave-girl is punishable, 139. Derala on the son's having no rights of property. 72-73. Dishonest motives, 10-11. Disputes of Boundary, 1. Dispute between and the keeper of cattle, 1. Dispute-Heads of- enumerated, 1; --rules relating to cultivators, 55; between employer and employee, 67. Disobeying of superiors is punishable (Yājñaralkya), 138. Divided among themselves-explained (Brhaspati), 310-11. Division of property when & Brāhmaṇa has sons of all castes except from the Shüdra (Visnu), 243; -method of described by Värarla, 311-12; effects of _(Ibid.). Doing the work of an expert, when not qualified, is punishable, 139. Donor shall resume the gift by force if the thing for which the gift is made does not turn out to be of that kind, 65. Doubtful case is one where there is difference of opinions between two parties, 38. Dowry-explained, 61, 225. Duty of the keeper of the cattle, 82; devolved upon a man by the convention should be followed, 85; - of husband and wife, l. Dvirāgamana, 223. Dwelling house cannot be given away as gift, 60. Dyke-breaking &- is is punishable (Vişnu), 142. Eating with another, if one refuses without pointing out any defect, he is punishable, 86. Eldest brother may take the entire paternal property and others shall live under him as under their father (Manu), 171; if he defrauds the younger brothers, he shall be punished (Janu), 182. Employee on recovery when he completes his work should receive his wages, 77; - when he carelessly destroys anything should be made to pay its equivalent, 77. mp should be fined if he aban. dons his assistant who is tirod or ill and does not wait for him for at least three days, 78. Entire property cannot be given as a gift, 57. Erection of a dyko in another man's field with advantage is not wrong. 99. Expiatory rites, 164. Owner Fate on depend gain, loss and lif-, 96. Father shall not suffer for the offence committed by his sons (Närada), 115; should be punished if he does not give his daughter in marriage in time (Brhaspati), 165; -his property--the sons shall divide after his death (Närada), 170; - shall divide his sons according to his wishes (Yājñavalkya), 174, 177; may give a superior share to the eldest (Ibid.); -his wish shall prevail in regard to his self-acquired and also recovered ancestral property (Vişnu and Brhaspati), 175. 76; -may take double share him. self out of the property acquired by himself (Nārada), 177, 179; - may retain the greater portion for himself or may resume the property from the sons if he finds himself becoming cannot make an unequal division of the property in a joint concern (Manu), 186; -shall poor, 178; Earnest monoy when paid and the transaction fails the seller will have to pay the fine, 90.

·INDEX 329 G 8 give a bull to the eldest son and the house to the youngest in partition (Sharkha-Likhita), 180: shall take the best one among the slaves and the best one among the cattle, 181; -his mothers are equal to the mother (Värada), 195; - will take the property in case a member of a divided family dies without a son (Krtyayana), 282. Fees-amount of - to be given to the priests, 52-53; -nature of — at the various sacrifices by the various priests, 53. Fee (shulka) obtained by a woman explained (Katyāyana), 224. Female ascetic-intercourse with -is punishable, 163. Fine for grazing different animals in the fields, 103; for abusing each other among persons of equal caste and qualifications (Brhaspati), 107; - for reproaching others according to Katyāyana, 107; - for misrepresenting the learning, habitat, caste, occupation, or bodily defects (Manu), 108; for & trader for false measures or scales (Kätyāyana and Yājñaralkya), 118-19; - for treating equals as unequals (Janu), - for the cultivator who has been at fault (Manu), 128; for taking array public property (Yajña. talkya), 137; — for damaging & wall, 137; - for damaging leather goods, wooden and clay goods, flowers, roots and fruits, 137-38; - for demolishing a house (Visnu), 138; for damaging, breaking and destroying an article (Kätyāyana), 138; -for throwing into the house of another such things as cause pain and suffering (Yajñavalkya and Vişnu), 138; - for breaking a tank, & well, & pond, a drinking pit, and spoiling a path, a liquid substance or a girl (Shankha), 142; is heavier if the culprit is wealthy (Bphaspati), 161. Flag with the insignia of the Garuda bird, 141. Foreign trade, 88. Gains of learning, explained (Kätyä. yana), 216–18; -- of valour are im. partible (Manu), 219. Gālava on getting the bribe refunded, 64. Gambling is played with inanimate things (Manu), 315; - and betting are public thefts (Manu), 315;- dangers of -(Yājñavalkya, Katyā. yana and Bệhaspati), 315; -superintendent at -- may accept some gift from the gamblers (Värada), 316; should be done with the consent of the king (Vārada), 316. Gārgeya on getting the bribe refunded, 64. Gifts-non-delivery of, l; - promised through love and anger, 29; futile—,29; -resumption explained, 57; -what has been borrowed for a special occasion cannot be given as 57: --what has been promised to another person cannot be given as-, 37; impropriety of-, 57; ---points on which judicial proceedings proceed in regard to-, 57; what cannot be given as —, 57-58; -things which can be given as-in times of distress alone, 58-59; only such things may be given away as do not defile one's own family, 60; -what is in excess and what is one's own can be given away 60; -acquires validity when given away with the consent of the wife, of kinsmen and of the master, - invalidenumerated by Vārada, 63; valid-eight forms of 63; - invalid.in which case it should not be given even if promised, 64; — to be resumed if made under the influence of lust, anger or by one who is not the master, etc., 64; invalid 65: - made in distress with a religious motive is valid, 64: --given for religious purposes is valid, 65; -- given for pious purposes should be resumed if that purpose is not served, 65; - invalid giver and receiver both should be punished, 66: of the king by 119; - as - 61: - ·330 VIVÄDACHINTAMANI -un. razor taking the property from one and giving to another is invalid, 97. Girl who is not a slave becomes a slave when married to a slave, 73; - is entitled to the fourth part of a share, after the death of the father, in partition (Brhaspati), 194; married gets the fourth part from the share of each of the brothers (Manu), 208-10). Gold as security, 3. Goldsmith fur acting dishonestly should be cut into pieces with a (unu), 123. Gotama on the realisation of nterest, 8; on non-accruing of Interest, on the grazing of cattle, 103. Gautama on Interest, 14; son's liability to pay the father's debts, 28; on the loss of the deposit, 43; on the validity of not giving the promised gift if the person be unrighteous, 63. Gotra-relationship, 265. Gradation of punishment in a case of murder (Vārada), 147. Gyhastharatnakara on Interest, 9. 12; - on the may have heen worn by a woman during her husband's lifetiine 226. Highway robbers shall be hung by the neck on a tree (Brhaspati), 125. Hired cattle-keeper's wages, 81. Hireling abandoning his work before the expiry of the term shall forfeit his wages, 77. Hiring a house--one should pay the rent so long as one has not restored the house to the owner, 79. Hiring of animals, 79; a cart, a boat, utensils, etc., 80. House and the ancestral land shall go to the twice-born sons (l'rddha. Manu), 213. House-breakers shall he compelled to surrender their plunder (Brhaspati), 135. House-construction should not be disturbed if it is in the same condition from the very beginning, 97. House-furniture of-,6. Hurt with or without blood, the man causing it is punishable (Pisnu), 119; for serious - the man who has caused it is punished (Vanil and Brhaspati), 112; br hreaking the limbs, the man causing it is punishable (Tisno). 113; - then caused hut not proved hy witnesses, the king should take recourse to ordeal (Krityāyana), 115. Hurting limbs is punishable (ājñn. valkya and Katyayanı), 112-13. Husband should be punished if he does not approach his wife in season (Bșhaspati), 165; -- mar not repay the strīdhana spent by him finder certain conditions (Yājñavalkya), 230; - shall not be entitled to strīdhana except in distress (Devala), 229-30; -may 11se the stridhana with his wife's consent and repay the Principal, 230; -- should be compelled to repay the stridhand if he does not approach her (Katyayana), 231. I H Hulāyudha on the meaning of Kāyika Interest, 5; on transference of pledge, 21; on the share of the eldest son, 185: on the livision of the discovered property, 240. Harishchandra's words regarding the emancipation of Shüdra from slavery referred to, 71. Hārīta on the rate of Interest, 3; on the Interest on grains, 16; on not giving what one has promised, 62. Heads of the Corporation—the appointment of-, 84. Head of the family shall give only food and clothing to his brother's wives and to his daughters-in-law (Shankha), 268. Heir should establish his claim by evidence of other people to the property of the dead man, 51; shall not take the ornaments that Ill-treating one's father, mother or teacher is punishable (Shankha), 140.

·INDEX 331 on on of —, 8; - unstipulated, 9; deposits, balance of Interest, commodity sold and purchase money, 9; --not accruing from, unless stipulated, 11; -on which accrues no, 12; -maximum -, 11; gems, beasts of burden, vool, fruits, grains, etc., 13-14; on nils, milk, wine, butter, molasses, salt, etc., 14; -on loan transactions, 14; - rates of, in case of grains, 15; on the local usages of the country, 16; -forfeiture of-, 17; pound is charged on the doubled Principal, 37. Investment is & lawful source of property, 61. 304; com- J Images of deities-stealing, breaking or burning of the — are punishable (Katyāyana, Visnu and Shankha), 142. Immoveable property of the husband, the wife cannot dispose of at her will, 228; cannot be disposed of without the consent of all the sons (Prakāsha, Vyäsa and Manu), 303. can be mortgaged with mutual consent but cannot be sold, 305. Improper gift, 12. Improper purchase in case of-the purchaser is regarded as a thief, 48. Industry is a lawful source of property, 61. Inheritance is a lawful source of property, 61; --persons disqualified for- (Kätyāyana), 206-207. Insulting a Vaishya is punishable (Vişnu and Yājňavalkya), 140; Brāhmana (Ibid.); & Kşattriya Ibid.), Intercourse with a wiilor is punishahle, 138-39; -the king shall banish those who are addicted to - (Manu), 152; — with a forsaken woman, without fault, or with the wife of one impotent or incapable, is not punishable, if she was willing (Visņu), 153; - with a woman, if she comes to a man's house and makes advances to him, is not regarded as culpable adultery (Närada), 153; - with a protected woman in another man's house is culpable adultery (Ibid.); — with a willing maiden of the same caste is not wrong if he mar. ries her with a good nuptial fee to her father (Shankha), 154; - with a cow is punishable with death (Visnu), 160; -- with a woman of equal caste or of inferior caste is punishable (Brhaspati), 160; - with an animal is punishable (Närada), 163; — with male is punishable, 163; with a woman kept by another man is punishable (Vyāsa), 163. Interest, forms of --,3; -rate of for the four castes, 4-5; compound, 5; -of enjoyment, 7; -six kinds Joint concem-in a - the profit and loss shall be according to the share of the capital or år agreed upon, 49; among the labourers, 55. Judges delivering wrong judgments are to be punished (Brhaspati), 123. Judicial investigations for the realisation of debts, 38. Judicial proceedings, 45. Jyotixtoma, 53. K Kakini, 107. Kālikā (periodical Interest), 5. Kalpadruma, referred to, l. Kalpataru on the pledge for use, 21. This view has been criticised by Vācaspati Mishra, 21; last kind of wanton women, 33: - referred to, 108; - on the share of the son of the Shüdra wife, 246. Kapilii-cow's milk is not to be taken by the Shūdra, 140. Kärikā (stipulated Interest), 5. Kārsāpaña, 103. Kygnala is equal to half of a silver Masa, 103. Kätyāyana on Kārikā Interest, 6; the Interest of enjoyment, 6-7; - on loan, 9; on a loan advanced through affection, 10; on Interest, 11, 14-15; - on Interest on pledge, -on pledge sinking in value, 20-21; on kinds of surety, 22-23; on the on 18-19;

·332 VTVĀDACHINTAMANI on eman. - on - On on on the 84; on 86; 35; on 95; on on surety for appearance, 23; -02 repaying of debt, 27; repaying of debts by a minor son, 28; on gifts promised through love and anger, 29; on the pay ment of debt by the son only when he is free from difficulties, etc., otherwise by one who takes the property or his wife, 30; payment of debt contracted con. jointly rith her husband or her son, by the woman, 33; on payment of debts incurred by the insane, idiots, etc., 31; - on the payment of debts incurred by wine-distillers, etc., by one who enjoys their wives, 34; the meaning of the term vyavahāra, on punishing the creditor in case he uses force without trying other methods, 36; -on the method of realising debts, 36; - on the order of the payment of debts when several debts have become payable, 39; on the restoration of the deposit in case the borrower has lost it, 41; on the restoration of the deposit destroyed, 13: sealed deposit, 14; on sale, gift, pledge made without the owner, 45; on the position of the purchaser of an article sold without ownership, 16; on the concealing of the vendor by the purchaser, 47; - on the proof of the ownership of the owner of the property, 17; the declaration that the purchase goes to the purchaser when the owner fails to prove his ownership, 48; on the share of the partner who saves the property, 49; on the special rules regarding the wages to be received by the four grades of artisans, 55; - on the share of the thieves working jointly, 56; what cannot he given as a gift, 58-60; on the punishment of one who has promised to give as gift, but has not given, 62; on bribes, 64; on cases of resuming the gifts, 64; on the gift made in distress with & religious motive, 64; the twice-born becoming apostates from renunciation, 70; cipation of a slave-girl when she gives birth to a child, 72; on the property of the slave, 73; - on the rules relating to slavery, 74; buying and selling & Brāhmaṇa woman, 75; on the wages to be received by the carrier, 78; punishing the employer if he abandons his assistant who is tired or ill, 78; - on hiring a house, 79; -on the members of the Corporation, on punishment of one who disobeys the orders of the king, 85; on the duty of a member going out on business of the Corporation, on the punishment of one who refuses to eat with another without proving the latter's defect, 86; the repaying of the debt contracted in the name of the Corporation, 86; on the time-limits of the articles sold, 91; on the returning of things like milch cattle, 92; on the king's duty in determining the boundary, on the neighbours, 96; the place for construction of a privy or a urinal, etc., 98; on spoiling tank, garden, etc., 98-99; punishment for different animals grazing in the fields, 103; complaints made by the owner of the cattle, 105. Kāyikā Interest, 5-6. Keeper of the cows shall bring the cows back to the owner in the evening, 81; - is not responsible if the cattle is lost in certain cases, 82; - shall not be responsible if the cow is taken away by a thief, if the former only informs the owner of the right time and place, 82. Keepers become cleared of blame on producing parts of the cattle, 83; - milking the cow without the owner's permission should be fined, - shall be fined if the cattle is lost on account of some fault of the keeper, 83. Khārī, 127. Kidnapping a man or & woman for one should be burnt on slow strawon on On on on 83; on M ·INDEX 333 122; - - fire (Byhaspati), 125; & slave, a horse or a chariot is punishable (Manu), 127. Killing a domestic animal is punishable (Vişnu), 116; - a goat, a horse or a camel-the man should have his one hand and one foot lopped off (Vişnu), 116; - a wild animal is punishable (Ibid.). King-good qualities of, 318-19; - alone is authorised to punish, 317-18; -his responsibility in administrating punishment, 318-19; shall take care of the property of the minors (Manu), 287; - shall never take the property of woman (strīdhana) and that of the minors (Shankha), 285; shall take the property of the dead man in the absence of his heirs excepting that of a Brāhmana (Baudhāyana, Devala, Brhaspati and Manu), 284-85; should be punished a hundred times more than an ordinary person, 166; - shall punish one for having recourse to a woman intercourse with whom is not right (Närada), 164; --his wife-for having intercourse with-one should be burnt (Yajna. valkya), 143; his treasury—those who rob should be punished in several ways, 143;-shall make good the loss if anything is stolen in the kingdom, 135; should banish those villagers who do not help whenever the village is attacked or & dyke is broken or stolen goods are detected (Manu), 134; his duty for the protection of the people ( pastamba), 134; - should punish those who are entrusted with the guarding of the realm if they remain neutral during raids against thieves (Manu), 133;shall punish those who help thieves (Manu), 132; should cut off the limb of the thief with which he has injured the man (Kätyāyana), 131;_should cut off the two fingers of one who unties the knot of a cattle (Manu), 127; - shall have the tenth part as Customs Duty and the twentieth part on those of commodities imported from foreign lands (Vişnu), shall have the twentieth part of the price of saleable commodities (Manu), 122; who offers safety to his peoples is honoured (lanu), 118; - shall try his best to suppress the thieves (Ibid.); - shall punish those thieves who proclaim their crime (Ibid.); should decide the boundary in the absence of other factors himself, 96; -should determine the boundary, 95; -should maintain the conventions among the Corporate bodies, 84; receives the sixth part or the tenth part of the booty brought by the thieves, 56; - should keep in safety the commodities of the trader travelling away from his country and if he happens to die, 51; - should deliver the property of the dead man to his relations and kinsmen if he has no heir or he should keep it in his custody for ten years, 51; his share of the property of the dead without any heir, 51; shall decide the case at his own discretion in a case where there is no evidence of the vendor, 47; -should puuish and make the debtor pay the dues to the creditor if the latter complains to him, 38. Kinsmen will do the work of the partner when the latter is disabled, 52. Kşattriya haring recourse to a l'aishya woman should be punished (Manu), 158; --for having intercourse with Brāhmana woman should be punished (Manu), 157; can make a man slave of his own caste, 74. Kusumbha flower, 93. 8 L Labourers kinds of,67; -heving received the wages if they leave the work, should be made to pay double the amount of the wages, 76; have to look after the implements, 78.

·334 VITĀDACHINTĀJANI on 96: - 37: Lakşmīdhari, author of the Krtyakalparruma, referred to, 1; on the emancipation of a slave received in mortgage, 71. Land acquired by the Brāhmanical method shall go to the sons born of the Brāhmana wife (Vîddha. Janu), 213; - when flooded, re. mains in possession of the previous owner, - when not properly belonging to a man there is nothing wrong, if taken away from him, 97. Latrine, etc. should not be made very close to the wall of another person, 97. Law-suits-basis of, 1. Laws of gift and sale, 20. Law of debts, 55. Lease-a field on the rules thereof, 100; -payment to be made by lessee-rule for _(lyāsa), 101. Leprosy--one suffering from does not inherit, 201. Limb to be cut off with which one misbehaves (Vişnu), 152. Loan-recovery of-,2;-on Interest, 2; - secured by a pledge, 4-5, 7; - of long standing, 15; for & special purpose, 42. 40; one on Manu on the forms of Interest, 3; on the rates of Interest, 4-5; on the Interest on loan, 12-13; on Interest on the price of things, 16; on the Interest as pledge, 18; on the sale of pledge, 21; the repudiating of the debt by the master in case a dependent has effected the transaction for family purposes, 32; on the steps to be taken by the creditor when the debtor has denied to pay it, 34-35; on the means of realising debts, on the realisation of fine from persons proficient in dishonesty, 38; — on trusting a deposit, on the restoration of the deposit after the death of the depositor, 41; -- on the loss of the deposit, 41;-on the punishment of who would aruropriate the property of another person, 42-13; the nonrestoring of the deposit by the depositary, 43; on sale without owner, 45; -on the release of the purchaser in case he proves the bona fide character of his purchase, on the duty of the priest appointed to do the work but who left it undone, 52; on the amount of the fees to be given to each priest, 52-53: regards the sacrificial fee, 53; - on the punish. ment of a sacrificer for forsaking an officiating priest and vice versa, 54; on the seven kinds of source of property, 6Q; on resuming the gift, 65; on the property of the wife, the slave and the son, 72; on the paying of fine by a Brahmana who compels & sanctified twice-born to do servile work against his will, 74; on the Brāhmana's making a man slave out of the lower three castes, 74; on punishment of a Hireling when he fails to do the promised work, 77; the hired cattle-keeper's wages, on the responsibility of the keeper and the owner of the cows, 82; -on Niskas, 85; on returning 47; M as - Maiden approaching a superior man shall not have to pay any fine (Närada and Janu), 155; for defiling another maiden should be punished (Ibid.). Malevolent rites--fine for (Manu), 141. Man, who sells his slave-girl who is devoted to him and is loudly lamenting, should be fined, 75; should be fined if he treats his servants' wives or his child's nurse as slaves, 75; with whom the woman has misbehaved should be severely punished (Manu), 155; - should make the best effort to guard the women (Manu), 165. Man and woman -he who brings about their secret meeting is punished like the adulterer (Matsyapurāna), 153. Manager-explained, 69. - on 81; M ·INDEX 335 on or taking back of the articles sold within ten days, 89; on returning the article if found defective even after the time-limit, 93; On disputes regarding boundaries, 93; on witnesses of the Samantas in determining boundaries, 95; the method of deposition of boun. dary by people, 95; - on determining the boundary by neighbours, 97; on throwing unclean things on public roads, 98; -on sowing the seed in another man's field without the consent of the owner of the field, 101; -on punishing the keeper of the cattle in case crops are damaged in grazing, 102; on maintaining pasture ground, -on Krsnala as equal to one silver Vāsa, 103; on the punishment of the keeper in certain cases, 104. Märkandeynpurāna on the emancipation of the Shüdra from slavery, 71. Warriage-gift should not be given away in its entirety, 60: is im. partible, 220. Marriages-condemned forms of - 239. Māsa is equal to the 20th part of the Pala, 3-4; is equal to 16 Raktikas, 4; -is ordinarily of gold, but in connection with cattle-grazing it is meant to be of silver, 103. Master's treatment of his pupils, 68. Master cannot take away from the slave what the latter has acquired from his master's kindness, or by selling himself, 73; - of a work shall pay the wages to the Hirelings, 75. Matsyapurūna on the penalty to be paid by the depositary on the nonrestoration of the deposit, 43; the duty of the king to punish one who has not given the gift after making the promise, 62; punishing the master if he does not impart instructions in his craft, 78; on improper behaviour of a man towards the professional woman, 79. Measures of grains, 128. Medhātithi quoted, 226. Meeting with the wives of those classes of people who themselves bring about such meetings is not punishable (Manu), 153. Men whose livelihood depends upon their wives, 31. Mitākṣarā quoted on verbal assault, 106, 138. Minors—nothing on credit should be given to, 2. Money-lenders, 2-3. Mortgage, 21. Mother receives the same share as her sons (Bịhaspati), 194; receives an equal share (¥ājñavalkya), 195; - shall inherit the property of her childless son and in her absence the father's mother (Manu), 273–75. Mother's property-all the brothers and sisters shall equally divide after her death (Manu), 170; --after the death of the father, the daughters shall divide it (Närada), 170; -should be equally divided amongst the brothers and the sisters (Manu), 232; - shall be divided amongst the daughters or the offsprings of the daughters (Yājňavalkya), 236. Murder-in a case of responsibility of various persons and their punishment accordingly (Byhaspati), 147. Murderer should be put to death (Vyasa and Bghaspati), 149. 102; N OD Värada on the meaning of Käyika form of Interest, 3; on Interest, 6-8, 12: on Interest payable on loans, 16; -on pledge and its kinds, 17; on Interest on pledge, 18-19; on pledge destroyed. 20; on repaying of debts by sons, 25-26, 27; on the repaying of debts by minors, 28; On the kind of debts not to be paid, 30; on the repayment of debt of other persons like the son, 32; on the debt incurred by the son to be paid by the father, 32; the repaying of debt incurred by on -on ·336 VIVÄDACHINTAMANI on - on 81; on the - on the on on the on -On on. the wife, 32; on the payment or otherwise of the debt by the wife contracted by her husband, 33; on the payment of the debt by one who has taken the widow, 33; on the payment of the debt to a Brāhmana creditor when he dies without any issue, 34; on the payment of debt by women, 34; on the method of gradual pay. ment of debt, 37; on the meaning of the term Deposit, 40; on the kinds of deposit, 40; on the loss of the deposit along with the depositary's property, 41; the restoration of deposit, 42; refusal of the deposit, 42; sale made without ownership, 45; on the guilt of the purchaser when he conceals the man who sold the thing to him, 46; on the punishment of the purchaser in case the purchase-transaction itself is found to be improper, 46; — on the share of the partner who saves the property, 49; on the death of 2 partner in a joint concern, 50; - on the death of the owner of the entire property, 51; on the period of keeping the property in custody by the king when the owner is dead without any heir, 52; on the kinds of priest, 54; -- on the resumption of gifts, 57; on what cannot be given as gifts, 58; - on the invalid gift, 63; -on punishment to be given to the giver and receiver of an invalid gift, 66; on the kinds of servant, 67; on Antevāsin, 68; on the character of a pupil, 68; his classification of Hirelings, 69; -as regards an apostate from renunciation, 70; on the kinds of slave to be emancipated, 70; the emancipation of slaves, 71;. the procedure of emancipation of slave, 72; on the rules relating to slavery, 73-74; on the compulsion of the labourer to do the work promised before, 76; the wages of workers, 76; on the Hireling's abandoning work, 77; on the failure of the professional woman to meet the man, 78; the building of a house on the land belonging to another, 79: on the disputes arising in connection with the professional woman, 79: hiring utensils, 80; on the keeper's looking after milch and dry cows, on the duty of the owner and the keeper of the cows, 81; responsibility of the owner of the keeper of the cows, 82; settling of disputes with the keeper of the cattle, 83; -on the king's maintaining the conventions among the Corporate bodies, 8+; - on the detention of the article for realising the price, 88; on the loss of the sold article in case it were not delivered to the purchaser, 88; the rescission of sale, 88; on the refusal of the article sold to the purchaser, 89; on the fixing of the price of the commodity, 90: the time-limit of sale, 90; on the payment of the earnest-money and failure of the transaction, 20); returning the sold article to the seller, 91; on the purchase of a commodity without the knowledge of loss and profit, 91; on returning the purchased article even before the time-limit, 92; on the method of determining the boundary mark, on king's determining the boundary according to his own judgment, 96; on erecting a dyke in the field of another man with advantage, 99; on cultivating the fields by someone else in the absence of the first tenant, 100; on the land left uncultivated, 100; on lying down of the cattle in the field, 103; on the destruction of crops and fining the owner, - on the innocence of the keeper and owner of the cows under certain cases, 104; - on the damage done to crops and payment for the damage, 104. Natives the meaning of -, 96. Niska is made up of four suvarnos, 85. On - - 95; - on on 103; on ·INDEX 337 Nitichintamani referred to, 109. Non-delivering the message_fine for (Yājñavalkya), 138. Non-responding to call for help-fine for-, 138. Non-uterine coparcener's share, 301; cannot take the share of the nonuterine brother, 301. Nuptial fee of the sister goes to her uterine brothers after the mother (Gautama), 239. Nyāyasūtra referred to, 2. 193; no -10 One becomes free from the sin when punished for it (Manu), 164, Ornaments are the wife's property (Āpastamba), 226. Outcaste has no claim to inheritance, funeral cake, water offerings (Shan. tha), 198. Outcaste and his son only get support and no share (Yajñaralkya), 200. Owner of the lost property should prove his ownership by means of witnesses, 47; -if he fails to prove, he should be punished, 18; - of the Cows shall make over the cows to the keeper every morning, 81; - and keeper of the cows-their mutual duty and responsibility, 82; - of the cow is punished if the cow dies in the house before the wages were paid to the keeper, 83; of å dog or a monkey shall not be punished for any injury inflicted by these (Nārada), 115. Partition-in the matter of people are not independent so long as the mother is living, 168; --principal time for making (Manu), 168; - is possible even when the father is unwilling, if he is too old or invalid (Sharkha), 171; is possible even while the father is alive, only with his consent, 171; -during father's lifetime conditions thereof (Nārada), 173; -of inheritance among brothers—as also for childless women till they get a son (Vashistha), - among sons of diverse castes (Manu and Bhārata), 241-42; of inheritance among brothers and childless women (Vashistha), 268; - when doubtful—kinsmen, the deed and the separate transaction of business will prove it (Yājñaralkya and Nārada), 306-07; -before transaction, suretyship, etc. should be done among certain members of the family (Yajňavalkya), 308; - between husband and wife (pastamba), 308; - is proved according to the Ratnākara, 309. Partner, if he acts without the consent of others and injures the property, has to make good to all, 49; who saves the merchandise gets the tenth part of the property besides his own share, 49; - if dishonest, should be turned out of the joint concern, 50; if of the joint concern happens to die, his share goes to his heir or to one who does the dead man's work, 50; joint concern may employ his substitute, 50; – in a joint concern should carry on the business without deception, 50. Pasture-land should be preserved, 101; -- for grazing of the cattle should be reserved in every village, 102. Path should not be obstructed by anyone, 98. Pativrată, the meaning of the term explained, 267. Penalty prescribed for the damaging of crops, 104; - for one who sells in the P 20; Padinyāya, maxim of the foot, 73. Pala, 3-4. Panas, 5, 9. Pārijāta referred to, l; on pledge, on the repaying of debt, 27; - on the emancipation of & slave girl when she gives birth to a child, 72; -quoted, 105; on the share of the eldest son, 185; — on the share of the son born of & Shüdra wife, 246-47. 22 ·338 VIVÄDACHINTAMANI - sons 21; - 60); 275; what is not seed, or picks out the seed, or transgresses the bonds of propriety (Janu), 119. Periodic Interest, 7. Persons disqualified for inheritance (Vārada), 2014; - should get only maintenance from the family, while their will get the shares (Närada), 205. Piety prospers by separate living (Janu), 172. Pious purpose-moner given for if not spent for that purpose, should be taken back (Vanu), 167. Pledge and security differentiated, 3; enjoyment of the 7; --immoveable, 7; -loss or damage of the-, 17; transference of-on mortgage, 21;-surrender of -,21; --sale of - cannot be given 2- Fift, 57; can be only a pledge, - can be given as a gift only as a pledge to be restored to the owner, 61-62. Ploughman running away from his work should be beaten with stick, 76. Poganda-isa minor up to the sixteenth year of his age, 28. Prakasha on the emancipation of slave-girl when she gives birth to a child, 72; - quoted, 215. Prāya stands for creditor threatening to fast till the payment of debt, 35. Preceptor of the family, 53. Preferential share for the eldest son (Baudhāyana, Devala and Manu), 183-85. Price should be fixed in accordance with the nature of the locality and the season, 90. Priest officiating when has become disabled, another priest shall do his work, 52; - should carry on their business as joint concerns, 52; -should get his part of the work done by his son, in case he has to leave the work undone even after taking his fees, 52; of the second grade in the Jyotiştoma, third and fourth grades, 53; --principal -- are Hotr, Adhvaryu, Udgáty and Brah. 22B man, 53; -kinds of, 54; — officiating-if he forsakes the sacrificer, is punishable, 54. Primogenitura—there shall be no in case of the second partition (Brhaspati), 290. Principal--forfeiture of , 20. Prizes of the war should go to the victorious king, and should be given as gift only with his consent, 61. Property of the Vedic scholar goes to the Parişad (society) (Sharkha- Likhita), 285. Property of the Brāhmaṇa shall go to the Vedic scholars in the absence of his heirs (Derala), 284; - of the Sonless man-dirisions of the --- (Devala), 282-83; shall devolve upon him who is the nearest to the deceased sapindas (Manu), 275; - goes to the eldest brother after the death of the father (Gautama). - of a sonless man goes to his wife first, then to the daughter, then to his mother, brother, Bandhus, Sakulyas, fellow-scholars and king (Vişņu), 264-65; - acquired by the father after partition shall go to the son bom after partition, 256; -- of the dead maiden shall go to the uterine brothers or to mother, or to father (Bauchāyana), 210; - of woman received in the con. demned forms of marriages belongs to the parents if she dies childless (Manu), 238; - of a woman married in Brāhma, Daiva, Arşa, Gāndharva or Prājāpatya goes to the husband alone if she dies childless (Manu), 238; - obtained in battle is impartible, 219; - which is impartible (Manu), 213-20; - acquired by persons who have learnt the sciences in the family is partible (Brhaspati), 217; - acquired through valour is partible (Ibid.); acquired without the help of the joint property should not be divided, 213-16; left after the discharge of the father's liabilities should be divided (Närada), 212; — of the grandfather and the father and self-acquired all this is - - ·INDEX 339 con- 8 woman - 60; common - - common divisible (Kätyāyana), 211; cealed if found out, shall be equally divided (Kätyāyana), 196; --wrongly divided to be divided into equal shares when it is found out (Bhrgu), 196; -stolen on the outskirts of the village should be made good by the village-officer; stolen on the pas. ture-land by the owner and outside the pasture-land by the detective. officer (Kātyāyana), 135; - when sold, if not delivered to the purchaser, the man who has sold it should be punished, 89; -marked value of the 89; ---- When sold should be delivered to the purchaser, 88; --seven sources of acquiring - -self-acquired may be given away at one's own pleasure, 60; immorcable cannot he given away if it is not in excess, 61); -when it is to be given away the consent of others is necessary, 60; cannot be given away as gift, 57; - to be kept in custody by the king when the owner is dead without any heir, 51-52; of a non- Brāhmana who is lost will go to the king, 51; of the Brāhmana should not be taken by the king, 34. Promised gift, 12. Profit in trading in foreign countries, 88. Prostitute--forcible intercourse with, is punishable (l'yāsa), 163; their fee is 500 Panas, 163. Public road-throwing unclean things is punishable, 98. Punishment the kind of person to administer, 317; - for gambling with false dice (Vignu and Yājña. valkya), 316; - for selling things without ownership, 167; for a Brāhmaṇa woman having recourse to & Shüdra (Yama), 162; Ksattriya having recourse to Brāhmana woman (Vashistha), 162; for & Vaishya having recourse to & Brāhmana women (Ibid.); woman who comes to a man and advances herself to him (Bphaspati), 162; for a man of noble birth with Shūdra (Āpastamba), 161; -for & Shüdra for having intercourse with a Brāhmaṇa woman (Yama), 161; -- for violating the bed of a superior person (Hārīta), 161; - for a woman for having an intercourse with a man of inferior caste (Gotama), 161; for the violator of the teacher's bed in a wider sense (Närada and Yājňavalkya), 160-61; - for drinking wine (Manu), 160; - for violating the teacher's bed (Manu), 160; - - for & Brāhmanı for making & sanctified twice-born do servile work (Manu), 159; - for & Brāhmana for having recourse to & Chandala woman, 159; - for forsaking one's mother, father, son and wife (lanu), 159; for the officiating priest for forsaking the sacrificer (Ibid.);--for a sacrificer dis. missing an officiating priest (Ibid.); - for those who help the secret meeting of a woman with a man (Vatsyapurāna), 159; -- for violating a maiden of superior status or of equal status ( Manu), 154; - for wantonly defiling a maiden through sheer audacity, 154; - for conversation with the wives of dancers, slave girls, female mendicants (Ianu), 152; - for killing (Baudhāyana), 146-47; for striking & man with weapon, and for causing abortion (Ushanas and Yajňavalkya), 145; for the use of false scales, weights, (Shankha), 141-15; --- for officer who remits the fine of & guilty person (I'iqnal), 145; - for punishing faultless man (Yājňavalkya), 144; for one who lets go an adulterer or a thief (Ibid.): - for one who enters in a Royal Warrant (Ibid.); - for destroying a crossing, & flag, & pole, or images (Manu and Shankha), 141-42; - for man subsisting by the occupation of his superiors, -inflicted upon the culprit should be proportionate to the heaviness of crime committed (Nārada), 137; measures on the an for & 8 for & 141;

·340 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI - w for those who buy stolen property and those who receive it in giſt and also those who hide them (Katyā. yana), 133; - for those who help the operating thieves (Närada), 133; for those who invite thieves and direct them, 133; for those who knowingly provide food, shelter, fire, water, advice, implements or funds for the thief or for the murderer (Yājñavalkya), 133; - for stealing grains, vegetables, roots, fruits, flowers, trees, etc. (Manu), 129-30; - for stealing in accordance with the number of things stolen, 128-29; for stealing more than 100 Karsas of gold and silver, 128; for stealing cattle or untying & knot (Yājñavalkya), 127; - for stealing animals (Tyāsa and T'isņu), 126-27; - for stealingcows belonging to a Brihmana, for piercing their nostrils (Alanu), 126; - for kid. napping persons (Vyāsa), 125; -- for cheating women and children by making artificially articles of small value appear as of higher value (Bșhaspati), 124; -- for making and selling false gold, or fictitious pearls and corals, 124; – for pledging or selling a covered article after having altered it or making it appear as a valuable article (Yājñaralkya), 124; - for one who makes a thing of inferior quality look like one of & superior quality (Yājñavalkya), 123; - for a physician dealing dishonestly towards persons of higher class (Disnu), 122; for declaring a true coin to be false or a false coin to be true (Yājñavalkya), 121; --for forging royal edicts, making counterfeit coins, etc. (Ibid.); for profiteering by traders (Ibid.); - for selling counterfeits (Vişnu), 121; for selling & thing at unauthorised price (Vājnavalkya), 121; for traders hampering the sale of modities brought in by foreign traders (Yājñavalkya), 121; - for adulterating medicines, oils, salts, scents, grains, etc. (Yājñavalkya), 120; - for selling an article after hiding its defects or having adul. terated (Brhaspati), 120; -- for a trader making a false declaration regarding quantities, or evading the Custom-House (Yājñavalkya), 120; for the feller of a fruit-yielding tree (Vişņu), 117; -- for injuring trees, bushes, etc. (Yājñavalkya, Vişnu and Manu), 117;. for a man striking another with a dangerous weapon (Kätyāyana), 115; - for the members of the family even including the slave and the servant only on the back part (Manu), 115; - for misbehaviour (Yama), 115; for the owner of a dog or other animals if he does not save the person attacked, 115; - for the owner of the tusked or horned animal when he does not save the person attacked (Iājñaralkya), 113: for each of the assailants against one single man (Yajňavalkya), 114; should be in accordance with the degree of hurt caused to the other (Ianu), 113; for beating a man in such te way as to render him as good as dead, 113; for following the orders of the king's enemy (Yājñaralkya), 113; - for hurting both the eyes of a man (Ibid.); -- for offending against a Brāhmana by a man of lower caste (Närada), 113; --for striking a king (Ibid.); - for an offence (Ushanas), 109; -- for reviling the king (Vārada), 108; of persons engaged in abusing each other (Brhaspati), 106-07; - for one who effects a sale without ownership, 45-46. Pupil the nature of the punishments for--( pastamba), 115; vant, 67-68; - should serve the teacher, his wife and his son, 68. Purāna meaning gold-coin, stands for monetary transaction, 16-17. Purchaser has to pay a fine if he returns things, like milch cattle, etc., after purchasing, 92; - shall not give it up, if he had purchased the thing after thorough examination, - - - as a ser - w com- ·INDEX 341 91-92; if he refuses to accept the article it may be sold to another, but the first purchaser has to pay the loss if the said article has been damaged in the meantime, 90; -should give back to the seller the sold article if the sale has been made under unusual circumstances, 89; -if he refuses to accept the delivery of the sold article, he shall suffer the penalties, 89; should pay to the owner the amount claimed by him and a fine to the king, if he fails to produce the vendor, 47; — will get his money from the vendor in case he loses his judicial proceedings, 46; - should not be punished when the seller has been produced, 46; --genuineness of the depends upon the producing of the seller, 46. Purchase is a lawful source of property, 61. Purchase-money, 9. Purchase and Sale-Recission, 1. Religious purpose-whatever has been promised for -- must be paid, 28. Remarried woman, the first kind of, 34. Rent of house, as a kind of Interest, 6. Repartition is possible up to the fourth generation (Devala), 192. Returning of the articles sold, 91. Reunited members of a familyexplained (Brhaspati), 288-89. Reunited coparceners-if any one of them acquired additional property through his merits, he will get two shares, 291. Reunited son shall get his share (Manu), 297. Reunited brothers shall divide the property among themselves, if anyone dies sonless or becomes & requnciate, 302. Riding on the king's conveyance or sitting on his seat is punishable (Yajnavalkya), 141. Royal dues--those who conspire to cheat the State of the punished, 86. Royal Warrant-punishment for forging a --- - (Sharkha), 144. Royal command disobeying & - - is punishable (Ibid.). — аrе wan on R Raktikā, 4. Ratnakara, referred to, 1; on In terest, 14, 17; -on pledge, 20; on repaying of debts, 26;- on the third kind of wanton woman, 33-34; on the first kind of remarried woman, 34; on deposits, 42; the share of a man who saves the property from being lost, 50; re. ferred to, 69; on the emancipation of a slave girl when she gives birth to a child, 72; - quoted, 127, 268; --referred to, 210, 215; on the importance of transaction, 314. Receiving of proper gift is a lawful source of property, 61. Refuse of humanity, 116. Religious duties common performance of — among undivided brothers after division should be performed separately, 306. Religious gift land obtained as such should not be given to the son of the wives of the lower castes (Brhaspati), 243. Sacrificer is punished for forsaking an officiating priest, 54. Sakulya should receive the payment of debt when the Brāhmaṇa creditor dies without any issue, 34; -shall take the property in the absence of Sapindas (Baudhāyana), 284. Sale without ownership, 1. Sciences of weapons, 217, Sisters who are unmarried receive share for the purposes of their marriage, 194; - is to receive & share of the property of one who has left no child or wife or father, 290. Skill is described as art and craft, 68. Slave nothing on credit should be given to -, 2; -kinds of , 67, 70; for the stipulated period, 71-72; emancipation of --, 70-71; -main- ·342 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI 72 111; tained during famine becomes free by giving a pair of oxen and also whatever has been eaten during the hard times, 71; - if he happens to save his master's life, should be emancipated from slavery and should be given a son's share, 71; -debtor becomes free by paying the debt with accrued Interest, 71; -received in mortgage becomes free by paying money to his previous master if he agrees to redeem him, 71; -girl is emancipated if she gives birth to a child after intercourse with her master, 72; has no property of his own, whatever he acquires belongs to his master, 72; - emancipation procedure, 72; - enslaved through his connection with & slave-girl becomes free by abandoning her, -made for food becomes free on giving up the said subsistence, - captured in battle, emancipation of; or won through wager, 72; o person of the higher caste cannot be the slave of the lower caste, unless he has violated his duties, 74; one is fined if one makes -of the highest caste, 75. Slavery is inborn in the Shūdra, 71. Slave-girl-forcible intercourse with a-- is punishable (Yājňavalkya), 163. Sharkha-Likhita-regarding the fees to be given to the priests, 53-54; punishing a man for cutting a dyke between fields, 99; - for punishing in case crops are damaged by cattle, - on the grazing of the young ones of all animals, 103. Shankha on the non-punishment of small animals, 105. Share of the thieves when they work jointly, 55-56; - rules for joint working amongst the tradesmen, cultivators, thieves and artisans, 56; -in the expenditure incurred in setting free the thieves when caught, 56; -persons entitled to (Manu), 198, 204-05; - those who have entered other life stages have (Vashiştha), 206; allotment of -(Manu), 220; of the son born of & Shūdra wife (Sharkha and Manu), 244–46; of the son who was not in the womb at the time of the partition (Manu and Brhaspati), 253-55; of the reunited coparceners is to belong to the reunited coparceners (Pārada), 301. Shatamāna is equal to 320 Rattis, 86. Shraddhacintāmani-referred to, 264. Shüdra has no property of his own, whatever belongs to him is liable to be taken away by his master, 73; can make a man slave of his own caste, 74; - is created for servile work. He is never free from servitude, 74; - to be punished for abusing a twice-born (Gotama and Manu), 108: - to be punished for listening the Vedas, reciting the Vedas and for memorising, 108; should be punished for teaching religion. (Brhaspati), 108; - is punished for assaulting a Brāh. mana, is punished for adopting the living of a Brāhmana (Yājña. valkya), 113; - is punished for Frearing the sacred thread (Ibid.); - is beaten with a stick on his seeking to equal his superior in the matter of speaking, walking, bed and seat ( pastamba), 114; —-should not be punished again if he has been struck once for abusing the higher caste, 116; -feeding of - at rites is punishable, 138; is punished for making a living by the occupation of the Kşattriya and the Brāhmana (Yājñavalkya), 141; - should be punished for having intercourse with a woman of higher caste (Gotama and Manu), 157; woman is unprotected, 159; --the method of putting him to death (Baudhāyana), 161; - is punished for having intercourse with a woman of noble birth (Gotama), 161. Shulka, 12. Security and profit, 2. Security account, 12. Secret thieves should be punished by the king for cutting holes in the walls (Vyāsa and Manu), 125. a on 102; PC no ·INDEX 343 -of an CO- Seller—when he sells the article sold to another person after it has been refused by the first purchaser is not wrong, 90; is punished for selling a defective article, 89. Selling clothes obtained from dead bodies is punishable (Yājñavalkya), 14; -- what is not the seed is punishable, 101; - bad meat is punishable (Vişnu), 116; uneatable food is punishable (Vişnu), 142. Seniority is declared by birth only (Manu), 182. Separated coparceners shall take the property of the separated parceners (Kätyāyana), 303. Separation augments piety (Bphaspati), 172. Servants-law relating to, 67; -kinds of —, 67. Setting fire to field, etc. is punishable (Yājňavalkya), 143. Smytiscira on pledge, 20; on repaying of debts. 26-27; on the validity of giving the entire property as gift, 58; - on the giving away of the immoveable property as gift, 60. Smärta-rites are to be performed in the Matrimonial Fire, 308. Son cannot be given as gift, 57; only - should not be given away or received as gift, 59; father and mother are the sole masters in giving 59; has no power to dispose of the immoveable property so long as the father is present, 62; has no property of his own, whatever he acquires belongs to his master, 72; —is punished if he does not supply the mother with food (Bphaspati), - eldest plained (Devala), 181; who is endowed with learning and righteousness deserves to receive more in partition (Brhaspati), 185, 187; - who is seniormost in regard birth, learning and other qualifications should receive two shares of the inheritance (Byhaspati), 186; --devoid of good qualities is not entitled to inherit the father's property (Brhaspati), 197; - of the brother when the latter is dead shall receive his share from his uncle equal to those of others (Kätyāyana), 191; of the Shüdra wife shall not be a sharer in the property (Sharkha), 244; - born of & Shüdra woman shall get maintenance (Brhaspati), 247; -- of a Shūdra from an unmarried slave. girl shall receive a share (Yājñavalkya and Ianu), 247-48; unmarried woman shall take the entire property if the deceased has left no son or daughter's son from his married wife (¥ājñaralkya), 248; born after the partition shall get the share from thoso who became separated from the father (Vianu and Manu), 252-53; -born before the partition has no right over the father's share (Brhaspati), 255, 297-301; - born after the partition has no right over the share of the brothers (Ibid.); - born after the daughter is appointed their share will be equal (Manu), 261; - bodyborn, when he is born the other sons are entitled to the fourth of a share only (Kātyāyana), 262; - of the appointed daughter shall receive thefourth of a share (Brahmapurāna), - will get the share if a reunited coparcener is dead (Yājñavalkya), 293; if born after the partition shall receive the property of the father (Manu), 296; -soilborn shall receive the third part of & share (Brahmapurūna), 263; of cnunch, blind, deaf, idiot and dumb are allowed shares except when the father is outcast, 199– 205; ---body-born and soil-born of the disqualified ones, if free from defects, get shares, 201; - born from wives married in the reverse order shall be treated like the son from the Shüdra woman (Gautama), of divided coperceners partition among them (Yajñavalkya), 249-50; different varieties of (Nārada and Yama), 256-57; 263; away the 165; exto 249;

·347 VIVĀDACHINTĀMAŅI of , - are 129; - - in genof the twelve kinds of only six are kinsmen and inheritors (Manu), 257; -inheritors of property according to Baudhāyana, 258; -partakers of the Gotra (Ibid.); -distinction on the basis of the order in which they are mentioned, 256-39; -claims of the twelve kinds 259-60; other than the first two only get maintenance (Bphaspati and Manu), 260; —their part in the share-explained, 264. Sonless wives of one's father are equal sharers (Tyāsa), 195; -of the disqualified persons also get maintenance (Yājñavalkya), 202; - widow faithful to her husband's bed shall offer tho cake and receive his entire share (Vrddha-Manu), 266. Sacramental rites shall be performed out of the paternal property (Narada), 191; of those for whom they have not been performed during the lifetime of the father, 207; - of girls should be performed in accordance with one's means, 210. Sacrificial fee to be paid to the priest who abandons his work, 52; the time for giving ---, 52; 100 cows for the Jyotiştoma, 53. Sagotra explained by Brhaspati, 265. Sale without ownership is not a sale, 45; rescission of the — not possible after ten days, 89; rescission of the — possible even after the expiry of time-limit in certain cases, 89; rescission of - in case of a purchase without knowing the loss and the profit, 91; time-limit for. in cases of cattle, jewels, etc., 90-91; rescission of the on the same day or after the first day, 92. Samanodaka relationship, 265. Samantas are persons born in the neighbourhood of the disputed boundary, 95. Samvarta on Interest not accruing from, 11. Spies through-the king shall find out the doings of State officials (Yājſavalkya), 143. Sapindas, 197; to get the property of the childless person (Brhaspati), 247; - explained by Brhaspati, 265. Statem constituents of — (Vişnu), 145. Stealing animals is punishable (Nārada, Manu, Vyāsa and Yājñavalkya), 126; -- grains is punishable (Bphaspati), 127; - wooden articles, articles weighed by scales, of those that are measured and of those that counted-punishment for (Närada), 128; -- ploughing implements is punishable (Shankha), - milk, milk products is punishable (Vyāsa), 129; eral is punishable (Vişnu), 130; - rope and waterpot from the well is punishable (Manu), 130; — wooden vessels, earthenware, leather thongs, bones, skins, cooked food, etc. is punishable (Nārada), 130; -grass, wood or fruit or flower without the owner's knowledge, the hand should be cut off (Brhaspati), 131. Step-brother's share, 301. Stipulated Interest, 7. Stolen property should be made good by the district officer, the police officer, and the detectives, if the thief is not detected (Kātyāyana), 134; if a portion of the — is recovered from a certain person, the rest of it also should be realised from him (Vrddha-Manu), 135; ---if found, shall be kept in charge of a vigilant man and if thieves try to get them, they should be killed by an elephant (Manu), 135; – if discovered within a year should be restored to the owner, after that time to the king (Vājñavalkya), 135. Stoma of the house, 6. Stridhana- no interest on-, 11, 30; to be given by the husband or father-in-law (Yājñavalkya), 177; -defined and classified (Kätyāyana, Vişnu and Devala), 222–24, 229; -promised by the husband should be paid by the sons after the death of the husband if she stays in her husband's house, 232; --goes to the children (Gotama, Byhaspati), 233.

·INDEX 345 of, 34; - and its division according to Kātyāyana, 237-38; should be provided for the maintenance of 1 her life in case the widow is in her youth and is rough mannered (Hārīta), 268. Striking elder brother's wife is punishable (Yājñavalkya), 138; -his teacher is punishable (Ibid.), 141. Substitute for capital punishment in case of a Brāhmaṇa (Yājñaralkya), 143. Succession-order of - in case a man dies childless (Yājñuralkya), 276; - according to Apastamba, 276; - of the order of the inheritors of the property of the hermit, the renunciate and the religious student (Yājňavalkya), 285. Suits-false, 39. Supernatural methods of ordeal, 20. Surety in connection with law-suits, 22; -- for trust, 23, 30; -- for appearance, 23, 30; -money defined, 30 Surarna is equal to the eightieth part of 20 Palas, 1; as a measure, . - punished (Yajňavalkya), 131; open traders are - their method of rob. bing people (Tyása), 118; the king being unable to suppress them those who help them with food, drink, etc. in order to save them. selves are not wrong (T'irņu), 133. Title of law, 40. Trade-purpose of --, 2; right method 90. Traders for exporting goods monopolised by the State shall have all their property confiscated (Janu), 121. Trading abroad-persons — should de liver the profit to the purchaser, 88; - in forcign lands, 88. Transaction last - is really effective (Brhaspati), 313-14; -wuthority attaches to --- (Vājravalkya and Brhaspati), 313; Validity of when carried without a longer interval, 314. Twice-born person should not be punished if running short of provision while on a journey he takes two sugarcane-sticks, two roots from another man's fields (IIanu), 134; should not be regarded as have stolen anything under certain circumstances (Haru and Gotama), 134. or T Temple demolishing is punishable (Katyāyana), 142. Tenantmold - coming back to the field shall pay the expenditure incurred by the new tenant and then can take possession of the field again, 100; - if unable to pay the expenses to the new tenant, the produce of the land will go to the new tenant for some years, 100; the first being unable to cultivate, another tenant may do it and take the produce, 100. Theft of yarns, cotton, drugs, curds, milk, water, grass, vessels made of bamboos or cane, animal products is punishable (Manu), 130; - is a special form of crime, 136; differentiated from crime, 136. Thief is one who sells another's property without being its owner, 45; - should be made to restore the stolen things and then should be Upanidhi (sealed deposit), 40, 42, 44, Ushanas-on the non-acceptance of the compensation paid for grazing the cattle, 104; - on non-penalising of elephant and horses, 104. Usury, 9. Uttering improper oath is punishable, 138. . Vaishya can make a slave of his own caste, 74; for having an intercourse with a woman of higher caste should be punished (Manu), 157; can have only one wife and Shudra wife also (Bhārata), 243. Varuna is the lord of penalties (Gal tama), 166, may have 8 ·346 VIVĀDACHINTAMANI - - on of the labourer who does not work after having promised to do it, 77; - on the payment to be made by an employee if he destroys anything carelessly, 77; on the dismissing of the hirelings by the employer before resching the destination, 78; hiring a cart, 80; on punishing & man for demolishing the village boundary, 99. Vyährtihoma forms an integral part in the rites accompanying the giving and receiving of sons, 59. Vyāsa on the forms of Interest, 4-5; on maximum Interest, 11; on Interest on pledge, 19; on the payment of debt by the grandson, - on the debts not to be paid by the son, 29; -on the payment of the price of the deposit in case it has been consumed by the de positary, 42; on the producing of the seller who has sold without ownership, 46; -on carrying of business without any deception, on the responsibility of the keeper of the cows, 82; time-limit of the sale, 90; cultivation of the lease land, 100. Vyarahāra-explained, 35. 23; on or on Vashistha on forms of Interest, 3; on Interest on gold Rasas, etc., 15; on the consent of the son to be given away as a gift, 59. Vedic scholars should be honoured with gifts and requested to live in the kingdom, 143. Verbal assault-explained by Närada, 106. Violence- kinds of (Nārada), 130; -acts of -(Närada), 136. Violating a woman forcibly is punishable (Brhaspati), 139; - by fraud is punishable (Brhaspati), 159-60; for he wife of another man forcibly, the man should be put to death (Matsyapurāņa), 163; - willing maiden is punishable (Manu), 153. Vişnu on Interest, 10, 14-15; pledge pledged to two persons, 20; - on the repaying of debt, 26; - on the repaying of the debt incurred by the woman, by her husband her son, 32; the means of realising debt by the creditor, 37; on the punishment of & purchaser purchasing from a man who is not the owner, 48; making a slave of the highest caste, 74-75; on hireling's abandoning the work before the expiry of his term, 77; on the keeper's milking & cow without the owner's permission, 83; on the non-deliverance of the property to the purchaser, on throwing rubbish on the public road, 98; on damage done to the roadside field, unfenced crops, etc., 102; on the value of the crops destroyed to be paid to the owner, on the fault of the owner, if the cow is left without the keeper, 104. Vivādaratnākara-quoted on sale without ownership, 46; on the sale of an article, 90, 120, 142. Vrātya explained (Hārīta and Hatayudha), 156. Vrätyā woman-intercourse with her is punishable (Manu), 156. Vyddha-Manth on the wages of the labourer, 76; on the punishment 50; on the on the on - 88; my sea 103; W Wager, 12. Wages--non-payment of -1, 67, 75; - amount of --, 75; - for & plough. man, 75; -of workers according to Närada, 76; of the labourers should be fixed by persons expert in voyage and experienced in regard to time and place, 76; --if a hireling abandons his work before the lapse of the stipulated time, he forfeits his , carrier is to receive the only for the distance actually traversed, 78; - in the form of milk, 81; of the cowkeeper, 81. War-prizes given away by the vic. torious king 88 gifts, should be with the consent of the defeated enemy king, 71. 77;

·INDEX 347 33; - Washerman should be punished for! making transactions with the clothes (Yājñaralkya), 123. Water-drain should not be encroached upon, 97; or erecting an opening towards other's house is wrong, 97. Wealth gained by learning should not be given to the unlearned (Kätyāyana), 219. Weight gained by coarse wool, cottonyarn in weaving (Yājñaralkya), 124- 25. Widow when sonless can enjoy her husband's property as she likes (Kätyāyana), 227-28; faithful to her husband's bed shall dwell with her elders till her death, 227-28; her duties in case she inherits the entire share of her husband (Brhrispati), 266. Wife is the dead man's sole asset, 33; - cannot be given as gift, 37; -has no property of her own, whatever she acquires belongs to her master, 72; for declaring her paramour thief - is punishable (Vājñavalkya), -one should not converse with - of other men when forbidden (Manu), 152; making a living through their -, 153; -- and the son are one's own body, 153; - not having Strīdhana shall be made equal sharer with the wives having Stridhana (Yājňavalkya), 177; - of the dead brother cannot receive & share, 191; -superseded should get compensation (Yājñaralkya), 223; - becomes entitled to the property when there is no greatgrandson, 265; -of a sonless person shall perform the Shrāddha, 266; of the renunciate or those who have no son shall be provided by the reunited brothers (Shankha and Nārada), 302. Witness—if they depose falsely should be fined (Manu), 166. Women-nothing on credit should be given to - shall not pay the debt incurred by her husband or her son, 32, manages everything in the family, 33; -- should pay the debt contracted by her husband if she has been made to promise, - should pay the debt if she has taken the family assets, 33; last kind of wanton - 33; first kind of remarried , 33-34; - shall give away or receive in gift a son with her husband's permission and that too only when she is in company with her husband, 59; cannot perform the Vyāhrtihoma, 59; professional -- when ill or tired or in distress or engaged in work for the king is not to be punished for not meeting the man when invited, 79; -professional, if she is deceived by any one, he should be punished, 79; rules relating to the treatment of professional -79; - who is very unchaste, who has killed her hus. band, or elder or child, shall be put to death (Fājñoralkya), 142; - for administering poison or setting fire, or killing a man, or breaking a dyke or dam, should be drowned in water (Y'ājňavalkya), 142; -_types of persons who can converse un. checked with (Vanu), 150; should not converse with a man when forbidden (Vājñaralkya), 152; - defiling & maiden should be punished (fanu and Nārada), 155; proud of her relations and quali. ties, passing over her husband. should be punished, 155; - whose husband is impotent, who has never had intercourse with her husband, should be put to death if she breaks her faith with him (işņu), 162; who are not independent should not be arrested (Kätyāyana), 162; -- whose husband is away if found misbehaving, shall be kept confined till her lord comes back (Kātyāyana), 162; misplaced intercourse with a - is punishable, 163; – enjoyed by several men shall be punished like a prostitute, if any man has intercourse with her (Pyasa), 163; -longs for a man only (Manu), 165; -has no independence anywhere in all her conditions (Yājšiavalkya), 165; 140; - - ·348 VIVĀDACHINTĪMAŅI man on the 49; -her behaviour towards a (Hanu), 165; becomes dangerous if not restrained by love (Ibid.); characteristics of — according to Janu, 165; is free to enjoy the wealth given to her by her husband, 227;following the wrong path does not deserve the Strīdhana, 232; -is free to use her wealth received in dowry (Kätyāyana), 225; — may take her share from the coparceners under certain conditions (Likhita), 232; no seniority for them in the case of inheritance (Manu), 261; shall in no case dispose of the property of the husband (Mahā. bhārata), 269. Work-low class of enumeratod, 69; - stipulated if not done the man shall not receive the wages, 77. 52; on the debtor to pay his dues, 38: tearing off of the bond after the debt is paid off, 39; on the meaning of the term Upanidhi, 40; on punishing a man who recovers from another person's hand some chattel that had been stolen, 48; - on joint concern, on the partner's suffering a loss in case he practised deceipt, 50; on depriving the partner of his profits in case he be found crooked, on what can be given as gift, 59-60; — on the amount of wages, 75; on the duty of the owner and the keeper of the cow, 82-83; duty of the members of the Corporation, 84; -- on the duty described by the Convention, 85; on mis. appropriating the property of the Corporation, 85; on the damage done to the article sold before the non-deliverance of it to the purchaser, 88; on the selling of the article sold before when refused by the first purchaser, 90; - on the time-limit of the articles sold, 90-91; on the determination of the boundary, things other than the land and fields, 97; -on cutting a boundary dyke taking away field, etc., 99; on the erection of a dyke in another man's field, 99-100; on pasture-land, 101; -on the damage done to the roadside fields, unfenced crops, 120; on the setting free of certain animals, 104. Yama-on the realisation of & fine double the amount of the debt in case a wealthy debtor denies to Y on the on Yājinvalkya on forms of Interest, 4; on pledge, 7; on the nonacceptance of loan, 12; Interest op pledge, 18; on surety, 23-24; on repaying of debts in the absence of father, 25-27; the payment of debt by the son in the absence of one taking the property and the other taking the widow, 31; on the repaying of debt by the head of the family, on the debt payable by the husband contracted by his wife, 33; on the means of realising dues from low caste by making him do work, 36; - on the debtor's denying the debt and later, on being proved, his paying the dues and also a fine equal to the sum claimed, 38; on the non-intervention of the king in case the creditor presses the 32; pay, 39. Yautuka property of the mother belongs to the unmarried daughters alone (Manu), 235.

·Gaekwad's Oriental Series
CATALOGUE OF BOOKS
1943
ORIENTAL INSTITUTE, BARODA

·SELECT OPINIONS Sylvain Levi: The Gaekwad's Series is standing at the head of the many collections now published in India. Asiatic Review, London: It is one of the best series issued in the East as regards the get up of the individual volumes as well as the able editorship of the series and separate works. Presidential Address, Patna Session of the Oriental Conference: Work of the same class is being done in Mysore, Travancore, Kashmir, Benares, and elsewhere, but the organisation at Baroda appears to lead. Indian Art and Letters, London : The scientific publications known as the “ Oriental Series of the Maharaja Gaekwar are known to and highly valued by scholars in all parts of the world. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, London: Thanks to enlightened patronage and vigorous management the 66 Gaekwad's Oriental Series" is going from strength to strength. Sir Jadunath Sarkar, Kt.: The valuable Indian histories included in the " Gaekwad's Oriental Series " will stand as an enduring monument to the enlightened liberality of the Ruler of Baroda and the wisdom of his advisers, The Times Literary Supplement, London: These studies are a valuable addition to Western learning and reflect great credit on the editor and His Highness.

·GAEKWAD'S ORIENTAL SERIES Critical editions of unprinted and original works of Oriental Literature, edited by competent scholars, and published at the Oriental Institute, Baroda I. BOOKS PUBLISHED, Rs. A. 1. Kāvyamīmārnsä hihi): a work on poetics, by Rājasekhara (880-920 A.D.): edited by C. D. Dalal and R. Anantakrishna Sastry, 1916. Reissued, 19:24. Third edition revised and enlarged by K. S. Rama. swami Shastri, 1934, pp. 52+314 2. Naranārāyaṇānanda (RCR): & poem on the Paurāņic story of Arjuna and Krsna's rambles on Jount Girnar, bf Minister Vastupāla : edited by C. D. Dalal and R. Anantakrishna Sastry, 1916, pp. 11+92+12. Out of print. 3. Tarkasangraha (Tale): a work on Philosophy (refutation of Vaiseșika theory of atomic creation) by Anandajñāna or Inandagiri (13th century): edited by T. M. Tripathi, 1917, pp. 36+142+13 Out of print. 4. Pārthaparākrama (HTETIFA): a drama describing Arjuna's recovery of the cows of King Virāta, by Prahladanadeva, the founder of Palanpur: edited by C. D. Dalal, 1917, pp. 8+-29 Out of print. 5. Rāştraudhavamsa (TTETEAN): an historical poem (Mahākāvya) describing the history of the Bāgulas of Mayuragiri, from Răstraudha, the originator to Nārāyana Shāh, by Rudra Kari (A.D. 1596): edited by Embar Krishnamacharya with Introduction by C.D. Dalal, 1917, pp. 24+128+4 Out of print, 6. Liigānušāsana (furgien): on Grammar, by Vāmana (8th-9th century): edited by C. D. Dalal, 1918, Out of print. 7. Vasantavilāsa ( aer): & contemporary historical poem (Mabākāvya) describing the life of Vastupāla and the history of Gajarat, by Balachandrasūri (A.D. 1240): edited by C. D. Dalal, 1917, pp. 16+ 114 +6 Out of print. . pp. 9+24 ·Rs. A. 8. Rūpakașatka (995): six dramas by Vatsarāja, Minister of Paramardideva of Kalinjara (12th-13th century): edited by C. D. Dalal, 1918, pp. 12+ 191 Out of print. . 9. Mohaparājaya (1975T): an allegorical drama describing the overcoming of King Moha (Temptation), or the conversion of Kumāra pāla, the Chalukya King of Gujarat, to Jainism, by Yaśabpāla, an officer of King Ajasadeva, son of Kumārapāla (A.D. 1229 to 1232): edited by Aluni Chaturvijayaji with Introduction and Appendices by C. D. Dalal, 1918, pp. 32+135+20. Out of print. 10. Hammīramadamardana (#CHCRÉA): a drama glorifying the two brothers, Vastupāla and Tejahpāla, and their King Viradhavala of Dholka, by Jayasimhasūri: edited by C. D. Dalal, 1920, pp. 15+98 2-0 11. Udayasundarīkathā (getry): a Campū, by Soddhala, a contemporary of and patronised by the three brothers, Chchittarāja, Nāgārjuna, and Mum. nuņirāja, successive rulers of Konkan: edited by C. D. Dalal and Embar Krishnamacharya, 1920, pp. 10+158+7 12. Mahāvidyāvidambana (Agfagfasta): a work on Nyāya Philosophy, by Bhatta Vādindra (13th century): edited by M. R. Telang, 1920, pp. 44+189+7 2-8 13. Prācinagurjarakāvysangraha (retaca): a collection of old Gujarati poems dating from 12th to 15th centuries A.D.: edited by C. D. Dalal, 1920, pp. 140+30 2-4 14. Kumārapālapratibodha (ATCHGEfaatu): biographical work in Prāksta, by Somaprabhāchārya (A.D. 1195): edited by Jinavijayaji, 1920, pp. 724.478 7-8 15. Gañakārikā (गणकारिका): a work on Philosophy (Pāśupata School), by Bhāsarvajña (10th century): edited by C.D. Dalal, 1921, pp. 10+57 1-4 16. Sangitamakaranda (A): a work on Music, by Nārada : edited by M. R. Telang, 1920, pp. 16+64 Out of print. 17. Kavindrācārya List (1919-a): list of Sanskrit works in the collection of Kavindrācārya, a Benares Pandit (1656 A.D.): edited by R. Anantakrishna Sastry, with a Foreword by Dr. Ganganath Jha, 1921, pp. 20+34 0-12 18. Vārāhagfhyasūtra (ITR): Vedic ritual of the Yajurveda: edited by Dr. R. Shamasastry, 1920, 0-10 . a PP. 5+24 ·3 Rs. A. .. . • • 19. Lekhapaddhati (nara): a collection of models of State and private documents (Sth to 15th centuries): edited by O. D. Dalal and G. K. Shrigondekar, 1925, pp. 11+130 20. Bhavisayattakahā or Pancamikahā (Hageri): a romance in Apabhramsa language, by Dhanapala (c. 12th century): edited by C. D. Dalal and Dr. P. D. Gune, 1923, pp. 69+148+174 6-0 21. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Palm-leaf and Important Paper MSS. in the Bhandars at Jessalmere (chardta.at), compiled by C. D. Dalal and edited by L. B. Gandhi, 1923, pp. 70+101 .. 22. Paraśurāmakalpasūtra (HTXTT***45): a work on Tantra, with the commentary of Ramešvara: edited by A. Mahadeva Sastry, 1923, pp. 23+390. Ort of print. 23. Nityotsava (forniaga ): a supplement to the Parasuramakalpasūtra by I'mānandanátka: edited by A. Jahadeva Sastry, 1923. Second revised edition by Trivikrama Tirtha, 1930, pp. 22+232 24. Tantrarahasya (TTERI): a work on the Prābhākara School of Pūryamiminsī, by Rāmānujācārya : edited by Dr. R. Shamasastry, 1923, pp. 15+S4.. Out of print. 25, 32. Samarāngaña (): a work on architecture, town-planning, and engineering, by King Bhoja of Dhara (11th century): edited by T. Ganapati Shastri, : vols., vol. I, 1924, pp. 39+290 (out of print); vol. II. 1925, pp. 16-+324 .. 10-0 26, 41. Sadhanamālā (FTWTHITT): a Buddhist Tantric text of rituals, dated 1165 A.D., consisting of 312 small works, composed by distinguished writers : edited by Dr. B. Bhattacharyya. Illustrated. 2 vols., vol. I, 1925, pp. 23+342; vol. II, 1928, pp. 183+295 140 27, 96. A Descriptive Catalogue of MSS. in the Central Library, Baroda (actenuate qarteet): 12 vols., vol. I (Veda, Vedalaksana, and Upanişads), compiled by G. K. Shrigondekar and K. S. Ramaswami Shastri, with a Preface by Dr. B. Bhattacharyya, 1925, pp. 28+264; vol. II (Śruta Sūtras and Prayogas), compiled by K. S. Ramaswami Shastri, 1942, pp. 18+95 (folia) +301 12-4 28, 84. Mānasollāsa or Abhilaşitārthacintāmaņi ( HTT- AT): an encyclopædic work treating of one hundred different topics connected with the Royal household and the Royal court, by Someśvaradeva, a Chalukya king of the 12th century i edited by G. K. Shrigondekar, 3 vols., vol. I, 1925, pp. 18+146; vol. II, 1939, 7-12 v . 3 pp. 50+304 ·Rs. A. 24 29. Nalavilāsa (cfaci ): & drama by Rāmachandrasūri, pupil of Hemachandrasūri, describing the Paurāṇika story of Nala and Damayanti: edited by G. K. Shrigondekar and L. B. Gandhi, 1926, pp. 40+91 30, 31. Tattvasangraha (789): a Buddhist philo sophical work of the 8th century, by śāntaraksita, with Pañjikā by his disciple Kamalaśila : edited by Pandit Embar Krishnamacharya, with & Foreword by Dr. B. Bhattacharyya, 2 vols., 1926, vol. I, pp. 157+80+582; vol. II, pp. 4+353 +102 240 33, 34. Mirat-i-Ahmadi (fra-e): by Ali Muhammad Khan, the last Moghul Dewan of Gujarat: edited in the original Persian by Syed Nawab Ali, 2 vols., illustrated, vol. I, 1926, pp. 416; vol. II, 1928, pp. 632.. 19-8 35. Mānayagphyasūtra (HTGEREE): a work on Vedic ritual of the Yajurveda with the Bhāsya of Astāvakra: edited by Ramakrishna Harshaji Šāstri, with a Preface by B. C. Lele, 1926, pp. 40+264 5-0 36, 68. Nāțyaśāstra (2G): of Bharata with the commentary of Abhinavagupta of Kashmir: edited by M. Ramakrishna Kavi, 4 vols., vol. I, illustrated, 1926, pp. 27+397 (out of print); vol. II, 1934, pp. 23+25+464 37. Apabhramśakāvyatrayi ( katerai): consisting of three works, the Carcari, Upadeśarasāyana, Kālasvarūpakulaka, by Jinadatta Sūri (12th century), with commentaries : edited by L. B. Gandhi, 1927, pp. 124 +115 38. Nyāyapraveśa (Fran), Part I (Sanskrit Text): on Buddhist Logic of Dinnāga, with commentaries of Haribhadra Sūri and Pārsvadeva: edited by A. B. Dhruva, 1930, pp. 39+104 Out of print. 39. Nyāyapraveśa (1990), Part II (Tibetan Text): edited with introduction, notes, appendices, etc. by Vidhusekhara Bhattacharyya, 1927, pp. 27+67 1-8 40. Advayavajrasangraha (629995): consisting of twenty short works on Buddhism, by Advayavajra : edited by Haraprasad Sastri, 1927, pp. 39+68 2-0 42, 60. Kalpadrukoša (4): standard work Sanskrit Lexicography, by Kesava : edited by Ramavatara Sharma, with an index by Shrikant Sharma, 2 vols., vol. I (text), 1928, pp. 64+485; vol. II (index), 1932, pp. 283 14-0 on ·5 Rs, A. 43. Mirat-i-Ahmadi Supplement (FATTA-5-989 ufifue): by Ali Muhammad Khan. Translated into English from the original Persian by C. N. Seddon and Sred Nawab Ali. Illustrated. Corrected reissue, 1928, Pp. 15+ 222 6-8 . 3-0 1929, 7-0 7-8 4. Two Vajrayāna Works (y): comprising Prajñopāçariniścarasiddhi of Anangavajra and Jñanasiddhi of Indrabhūti: edited by Dr. B. Bhattacharyya, 1929, pp. 21+118 15. Bhāvaprakāśana (H1949.16): of Sáradātanaya, a work on Dramaturgy and Rasa (A.D. 1175-1250): edited by Yadugiri Yatiraja and K. S. Ramaswami Shastri, , pp. 98+410 46. Rāmacarita (t#afta): of Abhinanda, Court poet of Haravarsa, prolially the same as Derapāla of the Pāla Dynasty of Bengal (c. 9th century A.D.): editert by K. S. Ramaswami Shastri, 1929, pp. 29+467 47. Sanjarājayaśobhūşaņa (tou): by Xpsimhakari alias Abhinara Kalidāsa, a work on Sanskrit Poetics relating to the glorification of Vañjarāja, son of Virabhūpa of Mysore: edited by E. Krishnamacharya, 1930, pp. 47+270 .. 48. Nāțyadarpaņa (नाव्यदर्पण): dramaturgy, by Rämacandra Sūri with his own commentary: edited by L. B. Gandhi and G. K. Shrigondekar, 2 vols., vol. I, 1929, pp. 23+228 49, Pre-Dirnāga Buddhist Texts on Logic from Chinese Sources (ootenay:) : containing the English translation of Satáśāstra of Aryadeva, Tibetan text and English translation of Vigraha-vyāvartanī of Nāgārjuna and the re-translation into Sanskrit from Chinese of Upāyahrdaya and Tarkaśāstra : edited by Giuseppe Tucci, 1930, pp. 30+40+32+77+89+91 50. Mirat-i-Ahmadi Supplement (HT--Tust fire) : Persian text giving an account of Gujarat, by Ali Muhammad Khan: edited by Syed Nawab Ali, 1930, on 48 . pp. 254 26-0 51,77. Trişaşțiśalākāpuruşacaritra (frufe 197yqafra): of Hemacandra : translated into English with copious notes by Dr. Helen M. Johnson, 4 vols., vol. I (Ādiśvaracaritra), 1931, pp. 19+530, illustrated ; vol. II, 1937, pp. 22+396 52. Dandaviveka (gefaas): a comprehensive Penal Code of the ancient Hindus by Vardhamāna of the 15th century A.D.: edited by Kamala Krishna Smrtitirtha, 1931, pp. 34+380 .. 8-8 ·6 Rs. A. .. 53. Tathāgataguhyaka or Guhyasamāja Guhyasamāja (1996): tze earliest and the most authoritative work of the Tantra School of the Buddhists (3rd century A.D.): edited by Dr. B. Bhattacharyya, 1931, pp. 39+210 54. Jayākhyasamhita (opeefeat): an authoritative Pāñcarā tra work of the 5th century A.D.: edited by Pandit E. Krishnamacharya of Vadtal, with a Foreword by Dr. B. Bhattacharyya, 1931, pp. 78+47+454 55. Kāvyālaikārasārasangraha (2010$TTETTEY): of Udbhata with the commentary, probably the same as Udbhataviveka, of Rājānaka Tilaka (11th century A.D.): edited by K. S. Ramaswami Shastri, 1931, 12-0 .. Pp. 48+62 2-0 3-8 + c 19-8 14-0 11-0 56. Pārānanda Sūtra (TTTTORE): an ancient Tântric work of the Hindus in Sūtra form : edited by Swami Trivikrama Tirtha, with a Foreword by Dr. B. Bhattacharyya, 1931, pp. 30+106 57,69. Ahsan-ut-Tawarikh (HT-eq-alfa): history of the Safawi Period of Persian History, 15th and 16th centuries, by Hasani-Rumlu: edited by C. N. Seddon, 2 vols. (Persian text and translation in English), vol. I, 1932, pp. 36-4510; vol. II, 1934, pp. 15+-301 .. 58. Padmānanda Mahākāvya ( RHETO): giving the life-history of Rsabhadeva, the first Tirthankara of the Jainas, by Amarachandra Kavi of the 13th century: edited by H. R. Kapadia, 1932, pp. 99+667 59. Sabdaratnasamanvaya ( Taca): an interesting lexicon of the Nānārtha class in Sanskrit, compiled by the Maratha King Sahaji of Tanjore: edited by Vitthala Šāstri, with a Foreword by Dr. B. Bhattacharyya, 1932, pp. 31+605 61, 91. Saktisangama Tantra (x): comprising four books on Kāli, Tārā, Sundari, and Chhinnamastā : edited by Dr. B. Bhattacharyya, 4 vols., vol. I, Kālikhanda, 1932, pp. 13+179; vol. II, Tārākhanda, 1941, pp. 12+271 .. 62. Prajñāpāramitās (919rFAGT): commentaries on the Prajñāpāramitā, a Buddhist philosophical work: edited by Giuseppe Tucci, 2 vols., vol. I, Abhisamayalankārāloka of Haribhadra, 1932, pp. 55+589 63. Tarikh-i-Mubarakhshahi (afce-F-FATTET): contemporary account of the kings of the Saiyyid Dynasty of Delhi: translated into English from original Persian by Kamal Krishna Basu, with a Foreword by Sir Jadunath Sarkar, 1932, pp. 13+299 64. Siddhāntabindu (feerface) : on Vedānta philosophy, by Madhusudana Sarasvati with the commentary of Puruşottama : edited by P. C. Divanji, 1933, pp. 142+93+306 15 5-8 .. 12-0 7-8 11-0 ·Rs. A 1-0 . 65. Iştasiddhi (reff): on Vedānta philosophy, by Vimuktātmā, disciple of Avşayātmā, with the author's own commentary: edited by II. Hiriyanna, 1933, pp. 36+697 66, 70, 73. Shābara-Bhāşya (THC): on the Mimāṁsā Sūtras of Jaimini: translated into English by Dr. Ganganath Jha, in 3 Fols., 1933-1936, vol. I, pp. 15+705; vol. II, pp. 20+709; vol. III, pp. 28+ 1012 67. Sanskrit Texts from Bali (fogyat:): comprising religious and other texts recovered from the islands of Java and Bali: edited by Sylvain Levi, 1933, 18-0 pp. 35+ 112 3-8 a . 71. Nārāyaṇa Sataka (Ita): a devotional poem by Vidvākara with the commentary of Pitām bara : edited by Shrikant Sharma, 1935, pp. 16+91 2-0 72. Rājadharma-Kaustubha (TFFRian): an elaborate Smrti work on Rājadharma, by Anantareva : edited by Kamala Krishna Smrtitirtha, 1935, pp. 30+306 10-0 74. Portuguese Vocables in Asiatic Languages (G. a): translated into English from Portuguese by A. X. Soares, 1936, pp. 123+520 12-0 75. Nāyakaratna (79): commentary ON the Xyāyaratnamālā of Pārthasārathi Wiśra by Rāmānuja of the Prābhākara School: edited by K. S. Ramaswami Shastri, 1937, pp. 69+346 18 76. A Descriptive Catalogue of MSS, in the Jain Bhandars at Pattan (पत्तनभाण्डागारौय प्रन्यसूची): edited from the notes of the late C. D. Dalal by L. B. Gandhi, 2 vols., vol. I, 1937, pp. 72+498 8-0 78. Gañitatilaka (afvafetea): of Sripati with the commentary of Simhatilaka, a non-Jain work Arithmetic with a Jain commentary: edited by H. R. Kapadia, 1937, pp. 81+116 40 79. The Foreign Vocabulary of the Quran (T98<ia ); showing the extent of borrowed words in the sacred text: compiled by Arthur Jeffery, 1938, pp. 15+311 .. 12-0 80, 83. Tattvasangraha (1998): of śāntara kşita with the commentary of Kamalasila : translated into English by Dr. Ganganath Jha, 2 vols., vol. I, 1937, pp. 87739; vol. II, 1939, pp. 12+854 37-1 81. Harasa-vilāsa (Sefage) : of Hamsa Mitthu; On mystic practices and worship: edited by Swami Trivikrama Tirtha and Hathibhai Shastri, 1937, pp. 13+331 5-8 on .. ..

·8 Rs. A. 11-0 15-0 8--0 4-0 10-0 82. Sūktimuktāvali (aramet): on Anthology, of Jalhaņa, a contemporary of King Krsna of the Northern Yadava Dynasty (A.D. 1247): edited by E. Krishnamacharya, 1938, pp. 66+463+85.. 85. Bșhaspati Smộti (refera): a reconstructed text of the now lost work of Bphaspati: edited by K. V. Rangaswami siyangar, 1941, pp. 186+546 86. Parama-Samhita ( 4Chefa): an authoritative work of the Pāñcharātra system : edited by S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar, 1940, pp. 45+208+230 87. Tattvopaplava (149): a masterly criticism of the opinions of the prevailing Philosophical Schools by Jayarāśi : edited by Sukhalalji Sanghavi and R. Č. Parikh, 1940, pp. 21+144 88. Anekāntajayapatākā (FOTETTT): of Haribhadra Sūri (8th century A.D.) with his own commentary and Tippanaka by Munichandra, the Guru of Vadideva Sūri: edited by H. R. Kapadia, in 2 vols., vol. I, 1940, pp. 32+104 89. Šāstradīpikā (Karafat): a well-known Mimamsa work: the Tarkapāda translated into English by D. Venkatramiah, 1940, pp. 29+264 90. Sekoddeśațīkā (FATEHETAT): a Buddhist ritualistic work of Naropa describing the Abhiseka or the initiation of the disciple to the mystic fold: edited by Dr. Mario Carelli, 1941, pp. 35+78 92,98. Krtyakalpataru (ec7964GT): of Lakşmidhara, Minister of King Govindacandra of Kananj; one of the earliest Law Digests: edited by K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar, 10 vols., vol. V, Dāna-Kāņda, 1941, pp. 16+129 +415; vol. VIII, Tirtha-vivecana-kāņda, 1943 (shortly) 93. Mādhavānala-Kāmakandalā (HYTTATHROT): romance in old Western Rajasthani by Ganapati, a Kāyastha from Amod : edited by M. R. Majumdar, in 2 vols., vol. I, 1942, pp. 13+5+509 94. Tarkabhāsā (HOT): a work on Buddhist Logic, by Mokşākara Gupta of the Jagaddala monastery: edited with a Sanskrit commentary by Embar Krishnamacharya, 1942, pp. 7+114 95. Alamkāramahodadhi (OTCHEFW): on Sanskrit Poetics composed by Narendraprabha Sūri at the request of Minister Vastupāla in 1226 A.D.: edited by L. B. Gandhi, 1942, pp. 45+418 (with 2 plates) 50 . 2-8 . 1740 a 10-0 2-0 7-8 ·9 Rs. A, 97. An Alphabetical List of MSS. in the Oriental Institute, Baroda (TAT): compiled from the existing card catalogue by Raghavan Nambirar, 2 vols., vol. I, 1942, pp. 12+742 99. Vivāda Cintāmaņi (faarfaithfu): of Vāchaspati Wiśra: an authoritative Smrti work on the Hindu Law of Inheritance: translated into English by Sir Ganganath Jha, 1913 1044 II. BOOKS IN THE PRESS. 1. Nāțyaśāstra (2:27): edited by J. Ramakrishna Kavi, 4 vols., vol. III. an 2. Dvādaśāranayacakra (TEHT497): ancient polemical treatise of Jallavīdi Sūri with a commentary by Simhasuri Gani: edited by Caturvijavaji. 3. Kștyakalpataru (ertay498): of Lakşmīdiara, Virister of King Gorindachandra of Kanauj: edited br K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar, vols. I-IV. 4. Anekāntajayapatākā (varia): of Haribhadra Sūri (c. 1120 A.D.) with his own commentary and Țippanaka by Junichandra, the Guru of Vadidera Sūri : edited by H. R. Kapadia, in ? vols., vol. II. 5. Samrāt Siddhānta (prefer): the well-known work on Astronomy of Jagannātha Pandit: critically edited with numerous diagrams by Kedar Nath, Rajjyotisi. 6. Vimalaprabhā (fa STT): the commentary on the Kālacakra Tantra and an important work of the Kālacakra School of the Buddhists: edited by Giuseppe Tucci. 7. Aparajitaprccha (forage): a voluminous work on architecture and fine-arts : edited by P. A. Jankad. 8. Paraśurāma Kalpa Sūtra (TTTT2546): a work on Hindu Tantra, with commentary by Rämestara: second revised edition by Sakarlal Shastri. 9. Hetubindutīkā (garantat): commentary of Arcata on the famous work of Dharmakirti on Buddhist logic : edited from a single MS. discovered at Pattan by Sukhalalji Sanghavi. 10. Gurjararāsāvali (Terrierat): a collection of several old Gujarati Rāsas: edited by B. K. Thakore, M. D. Desai, and M. C. Modi.

·10 Rs. A A Critical Index to the English translation of Shābara- Biāşra by Ganganath Jha, prepared by Dr. Umesha Lishra. 12. Śaktisaigama Tantra (84879): comprising four books on Kāli, Tārā, Sundari, and Chhinnamastā : edited by Dr. B. Bhattacharyya, 4 vols., vol. III, Sundari Khanda. 13. Tattvacintāmaņi, the Nyāya work of Gangesvara with the Aloka and Darpaña commentaries : edited by Dr. Umesha Mishra, vol. I. 14. Dhūrtasvāmi Bhāşya on the Srauta Sūtra of Āpastamba: edited by Chhinnaswami Shastri, vol. I. III. BOOKS UNDER PREPARATION. one 1. Upanişat-Sangraha (ufagrire): a collection of unpublished Upanişads : edited by Shastri Gajanan Shambhu Sadhale. 2. Saktisargama Tantra ( ATHAT): comprising four books on Kāli, Tārā, Sundari, and Chhinnamastā: edited by Dr. B. Bhattacharyya, 4 vols., vol. IV. 3. Nāțyadarpaņa (arach): introduction in Sanskrit on the Indian drama, and an examination of the problems raised by the text, by L. B. Gandhi, 2 vols., vol. II. 4. Krtyakalpataru (कृत्यकल्पतरू): of the earliest Nibandha works of Lakşmīdhara : edited by K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar, 8 vols., vols. VI-VIII. 5. A Descriptive Catalogue of MSS. in the Oriental Institute, Baroda (ACTETTTETOyET): compiled by the Library Staff, 12 vols., vol. III (Smrti MSS.). 6. Mānasollāsa (#198197 ): or Abhilaşitārthacintā maņi: edited by G. K. Shrigondekar, 3 vols., vol. III. 7. Nītikalpataru (a fameua): the famous Niti work of Kşemendra : edited by K. M. Panikkar. 8. Chhakkammuvaeso (et): an Apabhramsa work of the Jains containing didactic religious teachings : edited by L. B. Gandhi. 9. Nişpannayogāmbara Tantra (faouare): describing a large number of mandalas or magic circles and numerous deities : edited by Dr. B. Bhattacharyya. 10. Basatin-i-Salatin (argtfact--forfaq): a contemporary account of the Sultans of Bijapur: translated into English by M. A. Kazi and Dr. B. Bhattacharyya.

·11 Rs, A. a Madana Mahārņava (gaarta): a Smrti work principally dealing with the doctrine of Karmavipāka composed during the reign of Vāndhātā, son of Madanapāla : edited by Embar Krishnamacharya. 12. Trişaştiśalākāpuruşacaritra (fauftatymufca): of Hemacandra: translated into English br Dr. Helen Johnson, 4 rols., rols. III-IV. 13. Matargavștti (96 Tefa): a commentary on the Matanga Pāramesvara Tantra by Råmakantha Bhatta : edited by Jogendranath Bagchi. 14. Aņu Bhāşya (2): standard work of the Suddhādvaita School: translated into English by G. H. Bhatt. 15. A Descriptive Catalogue of MSS, in the Jain Bhan. dars at Pattan ( 471HG124-6): edited from the notes of the late C. D. Dalal by L. B. Gandhi, 2 vols., vol. II. An Alphabetical List of MSS. in the Oriental Institute, Baroda (weathe): compiled from: he existing card catalogue by Raghavan Nambiyar, 2 vols., vol. II. 17. Natyaśāstra (rue): of Bharata with the commentary of Abhinara Gupta : second revised edition by K. S. Ramaswami Shastri, vol. I. 18. Nāgyaśāstra (777): of Bharata with the commentary of Abhinava Gupta : edited by M. Ramakrishna Kavi, 4 vols., vol. IV. 19. Bhojanakutūhala (ST): on the methods of preparing different dishes and ascertaining their food value written by Raghunātha Sūri, disciple of Anantadera in the 17th century A.D.: edited by Ananta Yajneswar Shastri Dhupkar. 20. Rāsasargraba (77987): & collection of 14 old Gujarati Rāsas, composed in the 15th and 16th centuries : edited by M. R. Majumdar. 21. Pārasīkakoşasangraha (et14897): & collection of four Persian Sanskrit lexicons : edited by K. M. Zaveri and M. R. Majumdar. 22. Shivaji Charitra: a Sanskrit account of King Sambhaji: edited by D. V. Potdar. 23. Rihla of Ibn Batuta; translated into English with critical notes by Dr. Agha Mehdi. 24. Mirat-i-Ahmadi: the Persian text translated into English by Dr. Syed Mujtaba Ali, 2 vols. For further particulars please communicate with- THE DIREOTOR, Oriental Institute, Baroda.

·12 THE GAEKITAD'S STUDIES IN RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY, Rs. A. .. 15-0 3-0 1. The Comparative Study of Religions : [Contents: I, the sources and nature of religious truth. II, supernatural beings, good and bad. III, the soul, its nature, origin, and destiny. IV, sin and suffering, salvation and redemption. V, religious practices. VI, the emotional attitude and religious ideals] : by Alban G. Widgery, M.A., 1922 2. Goods and Bads: being the substance of a series of talks and discussions with H.H. the Maharaja Gaekwad of Baroda. (Contents : introduction. I, physical values. II, intellectual values. III, esthetic values. IV, moral value. V, religious value. VI, the good life, its unity and attainment] : by Alban G. Widgery, M.A., 1920. (Library edition Rs. 5) 3. Immortality and other Essays : [Contents: I, philosophy and life. II, immortality. III, morality and religion. IV, Jesus and modern culture. V, the psychology of Christian motive. VI, free Catholicism and non-Christian Religions. VII, Nietzsche and Tolstoi on Morality and Religion. VIII, Sir Oliver Lodge on science and religion. IX, the value of confessions of faith. X, the idea of resurrection. XI, religion and beauty. XII, religion and history. XIII, principles of reform in religion): by Alban G. Widgery, M.A., 1919. (Cloth Rs. 3) 4. Confutation of Atheism : a translation of the Hadis-i- Halila or the tradition of the Myrobalan Fruit: translated by Vali Mohammad Chhanganbhai Momin, 1918 .. 2-0 0-14 Conduct of Royal Servants : being a collection of verses from the Viramitrodaya with their translations in English, Gujarati, and Marathi : by B. Bhattacharyya, M.A., Ph.D. 0-6

·No text on this page.

·SELLING AGENTS OF THE GAEKWAD'S ORIENTAL SERIES
England
Messrs. Luzac & Co., 40, Great Russell Street, London,
1.0.1.
Viessrs. Arthur Probsthain, 41, Great Russell Street,
London, IT.C. 1.
Messrs. Deighton Bell & Co., 13 & 30, Trinity Street,
Cambridge.
Calcutta
Messrs. The Book Co., Ltd., 4, 3, College Square.
Messrs. Thacker Spink & Co., 3, Esplanade East.
Benares City
Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Ofice, Post Box No. 8,
Benares.
Messrs. Braj Bhusan Das & Co., 40.5, Thathari Bazar,
Lahore
Messrs. Mehrchand Lachmandass, Sanskrit Book Depôt,
Said Mitha Street.
Messrs. Motilal Banarsidass, Punjab Sanskrit Book
Depôt, Said Mitha Street.
Bombay
Messrs. Taraporevala & Sons, Kitab Mahal, Hornby
Road.
Messrs. Gopal Narayan & Co., Kalbadevi Road.
Messrs. N. M. Tripathi & Co., Kalbadevi Road.
Saraswati Pustak Bhandar, Gulalwadi, Fort.
Poona
Oriental Book Supply Agency, 15, Shukrawar Peth.
Baroda
N. C. Athayale, Bookseller, Rsopura.

·No text on this page.