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...

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

पैतृकं तु पिता द्रव्यमनवाप्तं यदाप्नुयात् ।
न तत् पुत्रैर्भजेत् सार्धमकामः स्वयमर्जितम् ॥ २०९ ॥

paitṛkaṃ tu pitā dravyamanavāptaṃ yadāpnuyāt |
na tat putrairbhajet sārdhamakāmaḥ svayamarjitam || 209 ||

If the father recovers a lost ancestral property, he shall not, unless he so wishes, share it with his sons,—being, as it is his self-acquired property.—(209)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If in addition to what he has inherited, the father recovers such ancestral property as had become lost, he shall not, unless he wishes it, share it with his sons, even after these latter have attained their majority.

“But what would he the occasion for partition among sons while the father is still alive?”

The answer to this is that such an occasion would arise when the father himself proceeds to make the division among his sons. This is what has been thus declared (by Gautama, 28.2)—‘When their mother has ceased to menstruate, and when the father, though living, desires it, the sons shall divide the property’;—and again ‘When the father has ceased to have any longings, and when he has ceased to have intercourse with his wife’ (Nārada 13.3).

As a matter of fact, if there were no such restrictions, the son would become entitled to their grandfather’s property as soon as they were born; as it has been declared that—‘over the property movable or immovable, that has been left by the grandfather, both the father and the son have the same right.’ Having this right, all the sons are entitled to equal shares in their grandfather’s property; since shares only follow the right.

The father, after the birth of his son, shall not invest his ancestral property in mortgages or purchases; but using it for the proper maintenance of his family however has been permitted. In actual practice, even though, under the circumstances, the sons have a right over the ancestral property, yet from the deprecatory assertion—‘the sone (son/one?) who divide the property against their father’s wish are to be deprecated’—it follows that the sons who force the partition on their father incur a sin. Such as even though one may acquire property by receiving constant gifts, yet the act of acquiring such property is blameworthy. Similarly, even though the property (thus shared with the unwilling father) is the hereditary property of the sons, yet it is open to censure. For this reason, so long as they have any other means, the sons should never ask their father for a partition; as such asking would be immoral.

As a matter of fact, even in the case of the father’s self-acquired property, he himself divides it among his sons as soon as they have attained their majority and he finds them duly qualified. It has also been declared that—‘when the father has reached old age, he shall himself divide the property among his sons, allotting to the eldest a preferential share, and equal shares to the rest,’ (Nārada, 13.4). This, however, does not apply to the property that may have boon left by the grandfather; because, out of that, the father has no power to allot any ‘preferential share’—the right of both parties over it being equal.

As for the declaration—‘unequal division has been declared to be legal, when made by the father’ (Yājñavalkya, 2.116),—this has been taken to apply to a certain extent to the grandfather’s property also. In a case where there are no two full shares, there would be an exception, in the case of self-acquired property. (?)—(209)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse has been taken by Nārāyaṇa to imply that ancestral property may be divided by the sons even during the life-time of the father, even though the latter may be unwilling.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.121), which explains the meaning as follows:—“If a property was acquired by the grandfather, but taken away by some one else and not redeemed during his life-time, when such property has been redeemed by the father (the grandfather’s son), this is as good as ‘self-acquired’ by the father, and hence the father may not divide this with his sons, unless he is himself willing to do so”; and it takes this to imply that in the case of other kinds of ancestral property the sons may force partition on the father.—The Bālambhaṭṭī adds that ‘svārjitam’ being explained as ‘as good as self-acquired’, the explanation of it given by ‘Medhātithi—as ‘acquired by his own learning &c.’—becomes unacceptable.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 461), which adds the following notes:—‘Paitṛkam’, ancestral—‘anavāpyam’ (which is its reading for ‘anavāptam’), which is hard to be recovered by the father; such property being ‘self-acquired’ by the father, he shall not divide it with his sons, except when he is quite willing.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 339), which has the same explanation as Mitākṣarā;—in Dāyatattva (p. 9);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra 35a);—in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 126), to the effect that in regard to the property acquired by the father, independently of his ancestral property, sons have no voice, he himself being the sole disposer of it;—in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 177b), which explains ‘svayamārjitam’, (1) as ‘svayamarjitamiva’, ‘it is as if it were his self-acquired property’; and (2) as giving the reason for the law laid down, ‘since,’ ‘it is his self-acquired property’;—and says that ‘akāmaḥ’ implies that if the father so wishes, he may divide the property among his sons;—and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 201).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Viṣṇu (18.43).—‘If a man recovers a property which could not before be recovered by his father, he shall not, unless by his own free will, divide it with his sons; as it is an acquisition made by himself.’

Yājñavalkya (2.119).—‘If one recovers an ancestral property that had been taken away by others, he shall not give it to his co-parceners; nor what he has acquired by his learning.’

Ṛṣyaśṛṅga (Aparārka, p. 724).—‘If one of the co-parceners recovers landed property that had been lost, the other co-parceners also shall have shares in it, alter making over to him a fourth part as his special share.’

Bṛhaspati (Parāśaramādhava-Vyavahāra, p. 339).—‘If a property that belonged to the grandfather but became lost, is recovered by the father by his own effort, or what is acquired by him by his valour or learning,—over that property the father’s right is absolute.’

Kātyāyana (Do.).—‘What had become lost,—if that is recovered by the father through his own effort,—all that the father cannot he forced to share with his sons.’

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: