Verse 9.212

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

सोदर्या विभजेरंस्तं समेत्य सहिताः समम् ।
भ्रातरो ये च संसृष्टा भगिन्यश्च सनाभयः ॥ २१२ ॥

sodaryā vibhajeraṃstaṃ sametya sahitāḥ samam |
bhrātaro ye ca saṃsṛṣṭā bhaginyaśca sanābhayaḥ || 212 ||

His uterine brothers, coming together, shall divide it equally; as also the united brothers and consanguineous sisters.—(212)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The property shall be taken by those ‘uterine brothers’ who may have been ‘united’ with him in property;—also ‘consanguineous sisters’—i.e., those that are unmarried; it is only these that are called ‘consanguineous, sanābhi’ (which is the term used in the text); those that are married go over to the ‘family’ of their husbands, and hence no longer remain ‘consanguineous’ to their brothers.

‘And those brothers that are united’.—The particle ‘ca,’ ‘and,’ includes the ‘sisters’ also.

This should not he taken to mean that the property shall be taken ‘by the uterine brothers, and also by such brothers as may be united.’ As in that case those others also who are not uterine, but united, would be entitled to a share in the property. Among the uterine brothers, there may he some that are united and others that are not united; and where there are uterine brothers, united and not united, it is these that would divide the property among themselves.

Nor would this militate against the following text—‘A brother born of another mother, even though united, shall not take the property of his half-brother; while a uterine brother, even though not united, shall take it, but not the brother born of a different mother.’ (Yājñavalkya, 2.139). The meaning of this is as follows:—‘Even though united, the half-brother does not receive the property, if a uterine brother is there, even though not united; while among the uterine brothers, he alone shall receive it who is united, and not any other, notwithstanding his uterine character.’ This is what has been declared in the text—‘Of one who is united with another brother, this united brother shall receive the property; and the uterine brother that of another uterine brother.’ (Yajñāvalkya, 2.138). When, however, there are no uterine brothers at all, then the property shall be taken by such half-brothers as may be united, and none others. Among uterine brothers, even when separated, there is always some sort of ‘proximity,’ due to their living near one another; so that the function of the uterine brother would, in a general way, be accomplished by even those that may have 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 share in the property can never totally disappear.

It would not be right to argue against this that—“at the time in question the share of the separated brother can never come up at all, and hence there is nothing that would disappear or not disappear.” Since it has been declared that ‘the son becomes the owner of the property as soon as he is born’ (so that the ownership of all brothers over the ancestral property is innate in them);—but so long as the parents are alive, they have no mastery over it’ (9.104); which shows that all the sons acquire ownership immediately after the father’s death.—(212)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

The share of a deceased or disqualified united brother goes first to the reunited brothers of the full blood and to such sisters of the full blood as are not married, next to such brothers of the full blood as had not been reunited, and finally to the reunited half-brothers (Medhātithi and Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—first to the reunited full brothers, secondly to the reunited half brothers, then to the full sisters (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

The said persons inherit the property only on the failure of sons, wives, daughters and parents (Kullūka, Rāghavānanda and Nārāyaṇa).

According to Nārāyaṇa what is here said refers to the property of one who dies before partition; but according to others to that of a reunited brother only.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.139), which adds the following explanation:—‘This verse lays down the manner of disposing of the share set aside in accordance with the preceding verse; which is as follows:—The uterine brothers shall divide it; i.e., it shall be divided equally among all his uterine brothers, those that were united with him as well as those not so united and those who may have gone to foreign lands; they should all come together and divide the said property equally among themselves;—also those step-brothers who had been united with him, and his uterine sisters; all these should divide it equally among themselves.—The Bālambhaṭṭī has the following notes:—That the un-united full brothers are meant by the first half is shown by the mention of the ‘united’ in the second half;—that the second half refers to half brothers is shown by the mention of ‘uterine’ brothers in the first half;—the half-brothers meant here must be understood to be of the same caste as the original owner.

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 679), which has the following notes:—The mention of ‘uterine’ in the first half and of ‘brothers,’ in the second half indicate that the latter stands for half-brothers;—the mention of ‘united’ in the second half, and the omission of it in connection with the ‘uterine brothers’ indicate that the uterine brothers meant are those that were un-united. Thus then the meaning of this verse comes to be this:—The property that has been set aside as the share of the disqualified person, shall be divided equally by his un-united uterine brothers, who should all—even those who may have gone to other lands—come together for the division; as also the step-brothers of the same caste as the original owner, who were united with him, and also his uterine sisters. All these, beginning from the un-united uterine brothers and ending with the uterine sisters, should divide the property equally among themselves. That the half-brothers meant here are those of the same caste as the owner is shown by the fact that for the brothers of different castes, different shares have been laid down.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 749), which adds the following explanation—The said share should be taken by those uterine brothers who were united with the original owner, and not those who were not united, even though they be his uterine brothers; if there be no united uterine brothers, then it shall be divided among all his uterine brothers equally—without any inequality due to seniority and so forth;—if there be no uterine brothers, then it shall go to the uterine sisters;—and if there be no uterine sisters, then it shall go to the step-sisters and step-brothers.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 601), which adds the following notes—‘Sodary āḥ’ qualifies ‘bhrātaraḥ’ (of the second line); so that the meaning is that among his ‘brothers’ only those will divide the said property who fulfill the conditions of being both ‘uterine’ and ‘united and also the uterine sisters who are unmarried.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 362), which explains the meaning to be that the said property shall be taken by the un-united uterine brothers, and the united half-brothers, and the uterine sisters,—all coming together, even those who may have gone to other lands; it being divided among these equally;—and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 158), as countenancing the view that brothers, even though uterine, have no share, if they did not live jointly.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 9.211-212)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.211.