Manusmriti with the Commentary of Medhatithi

by Ganganatha Jha | 1920 | 1,381,940 words | ISBN-10: 8120811550 | ISBN-13: 9788120811553

This is the English translation of the Manusmriti, which is a collection of Sanskrit verses dealing with ‘Dharma’, a collective name for human purpose, their duties and the law. Various topics will be dealt with, but this volume of the series includes 12 discourses (adhyaya). The commentary on this text by Medhatithi elaborately explains various t...

Verse 9.141 [Adoption]

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

उपपन्नो गुणैः सर्वैः पुत्रो यस्य तु दत्त्रिमः ।
स हरेतैव तद्रिक्थं सम्प्राप्तोऽप्यन्यगोत्रतः ॥ १४१ ॥

upapanno guṇaiḥ sarvaiḥ putro yasya tu dattrimaḥ |
sa haretaiva tadrikthaṃ samprāpto'pyanyagotrataḥ || 141 ||

If one has an adopted son endowed with all good qualities, he shall inherit his property, even though he may have come from another family.—(141)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Under 9.185, it is said—‘Sons, and not brothers or fathers, are the inheritors of the father’s property’—where all sons are declared to be entitled to inheritance. So long as the ‘legitimate’ son is alive, the ‘Kṣetraja’ and other sons are entitled to maintenance only: ‘The legitimate son alone is the sole master of the entire paternal property; for the others he shall, as an act of kindness, provide for subsistence,’ says Manu (9.163). Thus then the fact of the adopted son inheriting the lather’s property is already established; the present text therefore is meant to indicate that he is so entitled, even when the legitimate son is there. If it did not mean this, there would he no point in the verse at all.

The question that arises is—what shall he the share of the adopted son?

Some people hold that, since nothing particular has been laid down, the share shall he equal to that of the legitimate son.

This however is not right. If shares had been meant to be equal, then this would have been clearly stated, as it has been in the case of the son of the Appointed Daughter (under 9.134). Hence it follows that, as in the ease of the Kṣetraja son, so here also, the share shall be the sixth or eighth part (of that of the legitimate son).

In this connection there is something to be said. Just as the author has declared the share of the Kṣetraja son to be ‘the sixth part’ (9.164), that, of the ‘adopted’ son also would have been prescribed (if it were so intended).

Thus then, the real purport of the reiteration contained in the present verse has got to be found out.

Our revered teacher explains as follows:—The idea provided by the present verse is that, inasmuch as no particular share has been specified, the slare of the adopted son should be understood to be less than that of the Kṣetraja; and he cannot, go without, a share; nor is he entitled to a share equal to that of the legitimate sun, or to that of the Kṣetraja son.—(141)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

“Medhātīthi, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda refer this rule to the case where a man has a legitimate son and an adopted son, and think that in such a case the latter, being eminently virtuous, shall receive, like the Kṣetraja, a fifth or sixth part of the Estate. Medhātithi remarks that some think he is to have half, but that this opinion is improper, and finally that Upadhyāya, i.e., his teacher, allots to the adopted son less than to the Kṣetraja.—Kullūka and Rāghavānanda state that Govindarāja took the verse to mean that the eminently virtuous adopted, son shall inherit on failure of a legitimate son and of the son of the wife, but that this explanation is inadmissible on account of verse 165.—Nārāyaṇa says ‘it has been declared that the adopted son receives a share like the chief son, when he is eminently virtuous’.”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 567), which adds the following note:—‘Guṇaīḥ’, such as caste, learning and character;—the fact of this adopted son being entitled to inherit being patent from the fact of his being a ‘son’, the specific mention of ‘being endowed with virtues’ is meant to indicate that in a case where a body-born son happens to he born after the adoption, the adopted son is to have a share in the inheritance only if he is ‘endowed with virtues’, while if he is not so endowed, he is entitled to maintenance only.

It is quoted in Dattakamīmāṃsā (p. 28) as countenancing the adopted son’s inheritance of the entire property of the adoptive father, when the latter leaves no ‘body-born’ son;—in Puruṣārthacintāmaṇi (p. 370), to the effect that the adopted son is entitled to an equal share with the ‘body-born’ son;—and in Saṃskāra-ratnamālā (p. 769) to the same effect as Dattakamīmāṃsā.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 9.141-142)

Vaśiṣṭha (15.9-10).—‘If, after an adoption has been made, a body-born son be born, the adopted son shall obtain a fourth part;—provided he her not engaged in rites conducive to prosperity.’

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: