Verse 9.159-160

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

अउरसः क्षेत्रजश्चैव दत्तः कृत्रिम एव च ।
गूढोत्पन्नोऽपविद्धश्च दायादा बान्धवाश्च षट् ॥ १५९ ॥
कानीनश्च सहोढश्च क्रीतः पौनर्भवस्तथा ।
स्वयन्दत्तश्च शौद्रश्च षडदायादबान्धवाः ॥ १६० ॥

aurasaḥ kṣetrajaścaiva dattaḥ kṛtrima eva ca |
gūḍhotpanno'paviddhaśca dāyādā bāndhavāśca ṣaṭ || 159 ||
kānīnaśca sahoḍhaśca krītaḥ paunarbhavastathā |
svayandattaśca śaudraśca ṣaḍadāyādabāndhavāḥ || 160 ||

(1) The ‘Aurasa,’ ‘Body-born,’ (2) the ‘Kṣetraja,’ ‘Soil-born,’ (3) the ‘Datta,’ ‘given’ (adopted), (4) the ‘Kṛtrima,’ ‘appointed,’ (5) the ‘Gūḍhotpanna,’ ‘Secretly born,’ and (6) the ‘Apaviddha,’ ‘Cast off,’—these six are both heirs and kinsmen.—(159)

(1) The ‘Kānīna,’ ‘maiden-born,’ (2) the ‘Sahoḍha,’ ‘received along with the wife,’ (3) the ‘Krīta,’ ‘bought,’ (4) the ‘Paunarbhava’ ‘begotten on a remarried woman,’ (5) the ‘Svayandatta,’ ‘self-offered’ and (6) the ‘Śaudra,’ ‘Śūdra-born,’—these six are only kinsmen, not heirs.—(160)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 9.159-160)

Those two verses enumerate the twelve kinds of sons, for the purpose of indicating the two classes mentioned above.—(159-160)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

(verse 9.159)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava, (Prāyaścitta, p. 37);—in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 349), where it is added that though the sons have been divided into these two sets, yet the duty that devolves upon them, as ‘sapiṇḍas’ or ‘sagotras,’ devolves equally on all the twelve,—such as the offering of water and so forth;—and as for inheriting the father’s property, the latter set also are entitled to it, in the absence of the former set

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara, (p. 549);—and in Mitākṣarā, (2.132), which has the following notes:—The implication of this is that, in the case of the death also of the Sapiṇḍa or the Samānadaka of the father, the property goes to the first set of six sons and not to the second; though the duty of offering water and so forth devolves equally upon both sets. The Bālambhaṭṭī adds that from the last remark it follows that the compound ‘adāyādabāndhavāḥ’ is to be expounded as ‘adāyāda’ (non-inheritors) + bāndhava (relations),’ i.e., though they don’t inherit the property, they make the offerings required of the Sapiṇḍa or Sagotra.

This is quoted in Vivādacintāmaṇi, (Calcutta, p. 147);—and in the Dattakacandrikā, (p. 61).

(verse 9.160)

This verse is quoted along with the last, in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaśacitta, p. 37);—in Parāśaramādhava, (Vyavahāra, p. 349);—in Vivādaratnākara, p. 549);—and in Mitākṣarā, (2.132).

The latter half of this is quoted in Vīramitrodaya, (Saṃskāra, p. 211) which has the following notes:—This justifies the view that the ‘Śaudra’ also is a ‘secondary son’; but it adds that this can be understood only in the sense that the son begotten by a Śūdra on a slave girl (not married) is to be regarded as a ‘secondary son’ only in the absence of a ‘primary son.’

The verse is quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī, (p. 666 and 687);—in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 147);—and in Dattākacandrikā, (p. 61).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 9.158-160)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.158.