Verse 9.47

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

सकृदंशो निपतति सकृत् कन्या प्रदीयते ।
सकृदाह ददानीति त्रीण्येतानि सतां सकृत् ॥ ४७ ॥

sakṛdaṃśo nipatati sakṛt kanyā pradīyate |
sakṛdāha dadānīti trīṇyetāni satāṃ sakṛt || 47 ||

Once does the share fall to a man; once is a maiden given away; once does one say ‘I give’; each of these three comes only once.—(47)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This has been explained by us under the section on ‘Rescision’ (8.227).

At the time of partition, if the co-partners are such as are entitled to equal as well as unequal shares, they should divide the property in such equal and unequal shares. This partition having been once made, some one of the co-partners may subsequently raise objections to it. It is such subsequent objection that the ‘present verse is meant to preclude. If, however, at the very outset, the party were to indicate the inadequacy of his share, then, the partition should have to be revised. If, on the other hand, the objecter should declare the inequity of the partition after the lapse of a long time, all that he can claim is the equalisation of his own share, and not a rescission of the whole partition; since during the time that has elapsed each co-partner will have made additions to his share, or carried out repairs to what may have been in a dilapidated condition, or used up the clothes and gold and other things [so that a re-partition of the entire inheritance would not be possible].

Others, however, explain the declaration regarding ‘the share falling only once’ to mean that—‘if after the partition, it be discovered subsequently that there are some among the co-partners who are affected by impotence or some such physical defect as disqualifies him from receiving a share in the property,—there shall be no resumption of these shares by the others.’

Similarly, if there be some co-partners who are really entitled to two, three or four shares, but somehow at the time of partition, all of them receive equal shares, then, if, after sometime, they were to complain, they should not be permitted to annul the former partition.

In the case of the outcast, however, there is resumption of his share, as we shall explain later on.

‘The maiden is given away only once.’—Though this would imply that the husband acquires ownership over the girl immediately after verbal betrothal,—even before the marriage has been performed,—yet what is really meant is that particular time which is indicated by such declarations as ‘One might take away a girl even though she may have been betrothed’ (Yājñavalkya, 1.65) and ‘The marriage is to be regarded as accomplished at the seventh step’ (Manu, 8.227). This we have already explained above.

“Once does one say ‘I give’”—Cows and other things are given away to others in the same form of ownership that, the giver himself has over them; but the maiden belongs to the father as ‘daughter,’ while she is given away to the other party as his ‘wife’; so that the father’s relationship to her does not cease. It is for this reason that she has been mentioned separately (in the sentence ‘the maiden is given away only once’).

Objection.—“If the father’s ownership and relationship does not cease, how can the ‘giving away of the maiden’ be said to be accomplished? It is in the very nature of the act of giving that the ownership of one ceases and that of another is brought about.”

There is no force in this objection. In the case in question there are two relationships,—that of parent and child, and that of owner and owned, and while the former remains intact, the latter does cease. This is what is meant when verse 5.188 declares that ‘During childhood the girl should remain under her father,’ and ‘under her husband during youth,’ which indicates the cessation of the father’s ownership and the coming into existence of that of the husband.—(27)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 490), which adds that this rule regarding the betrothal of a girl pertains to cases where the bridegroom to whom the girl has been betrothed has no disqualifying defects;—in

Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 388), which adds that the irrevocability of a partition here spoken of is meant for those cases where all doubts regarding its fairness can be set at rest by reasonable arguments;—in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 145), and again on p. 182, where it is added that this irrevocability of partitions is meant for cases where the partition has been made by the objector himself;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 218), which explains the first clause to mean that ‘a man obtains his share in a property only once,’ and adds that what is said in regard to the ‘girl’ applies only to those cases where there is no defect in the bridegroom (to whom the girl has been betrothed).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Viṣṇu (5.160).—‘He who, having promised his daughter to one suitor, gives her in marriage to another, shall he punished as a thief;—unless the first suitor have a blemish.’

Yājñavalkya (1.65).—‘A maiden is given away hut once; having given her away, if one takes her hack, he becomes liable to punishment; hut even after giving her away, one may take her hack, if a better suitor should arrive.’

Gautama (Aparārka, p. 94),—‘Even though he may have promised the girl to a suitor, one may not give her to him if he happen to he beset with vice.’

Nārada (12.28).—(Same as Manu.)

Do. (12.32).—‘When a man, after having made a solemn promise of marrying his daughter to a certain suitor, does not deliver her afterwards, he shall be punished by the King like a thief, in case the suitor be free from defects.’

Do. (Aparārka, p. 94).—‘If even after betrothal, some defect is found in either the bride or the bridegroom, the betrothal may be cancelled; there is no finality in mere betrothal.’

Kātyāyana (Do.)—‘If, after betrothal, the bridegroom becomes lost, the girl shall wait for three months and then select another man. If a girl has been betrothed to one and married to another, she shall be given away, even after the performance of the ceremonies, to the person to whom she had been previously promised.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Do.).—‘If the bridegroom happen to die after the girl has been given away with water and verbally,—hut has not gone through the ceremonies with mantras,—she remains an unmarried maiden with her father.’