Verse 9.153

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

चतुरानंशान् हरेद् विप्रस्त्रीनंशान् क्षत्रियासुतः ।
वैश्यापुत्रो हरेद् द्व्यंशमंशं शूद्रासुतो हरेत् ॥ १५३ ॥

caturānaṃśān hared viprastrīnaṃśān kṣatriyāsutaḥ |
vaiśyāputro hared dvyaṃśamaṃśaṃ śūdrāsuto haret || 153 ||

The Brāhmaṇa shall take four shares, and the son of the Kṣatriya mother three shares; the son of the Vaiśya mother shall take two shares, and the son of the Śūdra mother shall take one share.—(153)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Though the shares of the Kṣatriya and other sons have been set forth here in an unqualified form, yet in another Smṛti, in connection with certain particular kinds of property, we find a totally different form of division:—(1) ‘The land acquired from gifts shall not be given to the son of the Kṣatriya mother, and (2) if any such land happen to have been given by the father to these, it shall be taken by the Brāhmaṇa son on the father’s death.’

Since this specifies the land ‘acquired from gifts,’ that acquired by purchase and other means do not become similarly excluded. Elsewhere again we read—‘The son horn to a Brāhmaṇa from his Śūdra wife is not entitled to a share in landed property,’ which precludes the Śūdra son from all kinds of lands.

All this restriction should be understood to apply to those cases where there are other forms of property also; otherwise, we would be faced by the law relating to ‘the tenth part of a share.’ If there were no other property, the sons in question would be left without any subsistence.

What I hold however is that though the allotment of shares (under the circumstances mentioned in the Smṛti texts quoted) is negatived, provision for subsistence does not thereby become precluded

If it be asked ‘What is the difference between these two?’—our answer is that if the said sons were entitled to regular ‘shares,’ they would be entitled to make gifts of, or sell, the property inherited, while what they get for subsistence, of that they can only take the usufruct.

“As for the grains necessary for his subsistence, these the Śūdra son shall receive from the Brāhmaṇa son; so that there would be no point in alloting any land to him for that purpose. Says Gautama (28-39)—‘Ho obtains his subsistence, in the manner of a pupil.”

True; but provision for his subsistence has got to be made, in consideration of the fact that the property under division is his father’s; and if such provision were not definitely made at the time of division, it is just possible that the twice-born brothers might lose the property, either by misconduct or by some such act as selling and the like; and in that wise he would be left without subsistence. If, on the other hand, some land has been definitely allotted for his subsistence, the other brothers could not appropriate it to other uses, without his consent.—(153)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 528), which adds that no significance attaching to the singular number in ‘vipraḥ’ this same rule applies to cases where there are several sons from the Brāhmaṇī wife.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 343), which adds that this pertains to lands other than that which may have been received by the father as a religious gift, to which latter, the non-Brahmaṇa sons are not entitled;—in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 144);—in Dāyakramasaṅgraha (p. 51);—and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 212).

On the failure of other sons, the rest of the property goes to the Sapiṇḍas (according to Medhātithi),—to the widow and the rest (according to Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 535), which adds the following notes:—‘Saputraḥ’, one having sons of the twice-born castes,—‘aputraḥ’, one having no sons of the twice-born castes;—Halāyudha and Pārijāta have taken this verse to men that no part of the property goes to such son of the married Śūdra wife as is entirely devoid of good qualities.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 344), which adds that this refers to such Śūdra-born sons as are not obedient to the father.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 735), which adds the ‘adhikam’ means ‘more than the tenth share;’—also on p. 740 where it is added that the implication o'f this rule is that in the case of the man ‘without sons,’ the property besides the ‘tenth share,’ which goes to the Śūdra-born son, goes to the ‘widow and the rest’

It is quoted in Mitākṣara (2.132-133), which explains the meaning to be that even though the son of the Śūdra wife is a ‘body-born’ son, yet he cannot inherit anything more than the tenth share, even when there are no other sons. It adds the following explanation:—‘Satputraḥ’ means ‘one having sons of wives of the twice-born castes,’—‘aputraḥ,’ ‘one who has no sons from the twice-born wives,’—when such a person dies, then his sons—Kṣetraja and the rest—or sapiṇḍas, shall not give to his son from the Śūdra wife, any more than the tenth share.—This implies that the sons of Kṣatriya and Vaiśya wives inherit the entire property, if there is no son from the Brāhmaṇa wife.

It is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra 35b);—in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 688);—in Vīramitrodaya

(Vyavahāra 192b) which explains ‘satputra’ as having ‘son born of the wife of one’s own caste;’ and ‘aputra’ as ‘having no son born of the wife of one’s own caste, and adds that on the death of such a person, the Kṣetraja and other sons will inherit his property, but the son born of Śūdra mother will not get more than the tenth part of the estate:—and by Jīmūtavāhara (Dāyabhāga, p. 219), which says that even in the absence of a son of a twice-born caste, the Śūdra son shall not get more than the tenth part.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 9.149-157)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.149.