Verse 9.118 [Shares of Unmarried Sisters]

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

स्वेभ्योंशेभ्यस्तु कन्याभ्यः प्रदद्युर्भ्रातरः पृथक् ।
स्वात् स्वादंशाच्चतुर्भागं पतिताः स्युरदित्सवः ॥ ११८ ॥

svebhyoṃśebhyastu kanyābhyaḥ pradadyurbhrātaraḥ pṛthak |
svāt svādaṃśāccaturbhāgaṃ patitāḥ syuraditsavaḥ || 118 ||

To the maidens of the same caste, the brothers shall each severally give the fourth part of his share; those not inclined to give would be outcasts—(118)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘kanyā’ is, as a rule, used in the sense of the unmarried girl’, as we find in the case where a son is called ‘kānīna’ (which means born of a kanyā, i.e., of an unmarried woman). In another Smṛti text, ‘anūḍhā’ (‘unmarried’) is the actual word used. From this it is dear that the share here laid down pertains to the unmarried girl.

‘Of the mine caste.’—Each of the brothers should give to the sister of the same caste as himself the fourth part of his own share. That is to say, in a case where the father has left several unmarried girls, the share allotted to ouch of them should be the fourth part of the portion of the brother belonging to the same caste as himself.

The upshot therefore comes to be this:—Three parts of the property shall be taken by the sons and the fourth part by the daughter.

Some people have held the following view:—Three parts of the property shall be taken by the sons and the fourth part by the daughter.

Others have held the following view:—“Truly a great benefit is derived by the daughter from her father:

If the father is alive they have their marriage performed at tremendous expense, and if he is dead, she obtains a share in the property.”

But the same may be said of the son also. Further, why should there be such objections against what is distinctly laid down by the words of the text?

If the idea of the objector is that, according to custom, the only benefit to which the girl is entitled is that her marriage should be performed,—then our answer is that the direct assertion of the Smṛti is infinitely more authoritative than custom. As a matter of fact however, the custom referred to is by no means universal; so that when it is only limited in scope, the right course is to adopt the course laid down in the Smṛti text.

Some people have held the view that—“all that need be given to the girl is what is necessary for her marriage, and not quite the fourth part as mentioned in the text”

But to such people we address the following remarks:—There is no restriction upon gifts in connection with marriage, as there is in connection with the sacrificial fee, which is fixed at¹ twelve hundred.’ The gift in connection with marriage however is not precisely fixed. For it is said.—‘The father shall marry the girl, clothed and adorned, and he may also give her a dowry;’ and as ornaments are of various kinds, made of gold, jewels, pearls, corals and such substances, it cannot be definitely ascertained how much wealth is to be given on that account, or what sort of ornament is to be given. So that even for the purpose of precisely defining what shall be given, it is only right to say that the brother shall give the fourth part of bis share. Nor does this militate against either any scriptual injunctions or reason.

This same view is supported by other Smṛti texts also: ‘The brothers who have already had their sacramental rites performed, should perform the same for the unmarried girls; and sisters should receive from their brother’s the fourth part of their shore’ (Yājñavalkya 2. 124); and again—‘Until marriage has not been performed, she shall received a share; after marriage she shall be maintained by her husband.’

What this last text means is as follows:—When the property left for the brother and the sister is small, and the fourth part of the brother’s share is not sufficient for the sister’s maintenance,—in such a case the sister shall enjoy a share equal to her brother’s, until her marriage; after which she shall receive the fourth part of the share, even though if be small. And in answer to the question as to how that, would maintain the girl, the answer is that ‘after marriage she shall be maintained by her husband.’

The term ‘brother’ in the present text has been explained as standing for the uterine brother. But what is the purpose of adding this explanation? As a matter of fact, the term ‘brother’ without a prefixed qualification is always directly applied to the uterine brother. And the term ‘severally’ in the text is also indicative of the same idea.

But in that case the girl that has no uterine brother would have to go without a share in the property; nor could there be any chance for any dowry being provided for her. It might be argued that her step-brother would provide for her. But in the absence of some other text laying down (such a gift), he may not give it

As a matter of fact however, the term ‘brother’ is found to be applied to the sons of the same father and several mothers; and it is only to cousins, maternal and paternal, that the term is applied figuratively. If this view is accepted, it saves us from the contingency of attributing several denotations to the single word ‘brother.’

The rule laid down in other Smṛti-texts also supports the allocation of shares set forth in the present text. We read there as follows—^‘What remains of the ancestral property, after the father’s debts have been paid off’, shall be divided; other necessary payments also being made out of it, such for instance as the gift to the unmarried girls; Here we do not find the words ‘brother’ and^‘sister,’ which might give rise to the doubt (as to the uterine or other kinds of brother being meant).

As regards the term ‘severally’ (in the text),—it has been added with a view to guard against the possible interpretation that the fourth part of the share of a single brother should be divided among all the sisters.

It might be argued that—“all that this means is that the brothers would incur sin by not giving out of their shares; and there is nothing to force them to give it.” Hence it is added—‘Those not inclined to give would be outcasts.’ A man is spoken of as^‘taking’ a thing only when he is its owner, and no one speaks of such a thing as^‘to be given to him;’ hence it is that no one speaks of the brothers giving to a brother (both being owners); and whenever the word^‘giving’ is used, it is only when the recipient is not the owner of the property concerned.—(118)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘If there are several brothers find only one sister, the former must deduct from their several shares as much money as will make up the fourth part of one brother’s share’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 731), which adds the following notes ‘Svebhyoṃśebhyaḥ’ means ‘from out of the share of one brother’; the plural number is used in view of the plurality of daughters;—‘svāt svāt’, the repetition is in reference to daughters of diverse castes;—thus the meaning comes to be as follows:—When a Brāhmaṇa has wives of all the four castes, and each of these has daughters, then the daughter born of the Brāhmaṇa wife is to receive the fourth part of the share accruing to the son of the Brahmaṇa wife; similarly the daughter of the Kṣatriya wife is to receive the fourth part of the share of the son of the Kṣatriya wife. This however, is not the sister’s ‘rightful inheritance’.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.124), which adds the following explanation:—The Brāhmaṇa-sons should give to the Brāhmaṇa-daughters the fourth part of the share that accrues to them in accordance with their castes,—whereby 4 parts go to the Brāhmaṇa, etc. (see verse 153 below); it does not mean that each brother should give a fourth part out of his own share; what is meant is that the daughter of a certain caste is to receive the fourth part of what is prescribed as the share of the son of that caste;—the last clause ‘patitāḥ syuraditsavaḥ’ indicates the obligatory character of the rule. For this same reason it is not right to hold that all that the daughter is to receive is money enough for her marriage. It goes on to add that the explanation provided by Asahāya and Medhātitha is the right one. Thus it is decided that after the father’s death, the daughter is actually entitled to a share.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 494), which adds the following explanation:—It does not mean that the brother should take out a fourth part of his own share and give it to his sister; what is meant is that the daughter of a certaind (certain?) caste is to receive the fourth part of what is prescribed as the share of the son of that caste; which thus is to be given to her, for the purpose of her marriage. Thus the meaning comes to be that out of the ‘four shares’ and the ‘three shares’ to which the sons of the Brāhmaṇa wife and those of the Kṣatriya wife respectively are entitled,—out of the combined total of these—a ‘fourth part’ shall be given to the daughter; so that while it is the ‘fourth part’ that is to be given, the real purpose of this gift is to enable her marriage to be performed. Such is the view of Viṣṇu, the Kalpataru and the Mitākṣarā; while Halāyadha holds the opinion that no stress is meant to be laid on the ‘fourth part’, all that is meant is that the daughter is to receive what would be needed for the performance of her marriage. And this is the view that appears to be most proper; for whatever the ‘fourth part’ may be, the performance of the marriage would be necessary in any case.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 345), which supplies the following notes:—The meaning is that the brother belonging to the Brāhmaṇa and other castes should each give to the sisters of the Brāhmaṇa and other castes, the fourth part of his own share; that is to say, (a) in a case where a man has only one wife, and that of the Brāhmaṇa caste, and from her he has one son and one daughter,—the son shall divide his father’s property into two parts, and having divided one of these two parts into four parts, he shall give one of these four parts to his sister and take the rest for himself;—when there are two sons and one daughter, the property shall be divided into three parts, and one of these three parts being divided into four parts, one of these four parts is to go to the daughter, and the rest the two sons shall divide between themselves;—when there is one son and two daughters, the father’s property shall be divided into three parts, and one of these three parts being divided into four parts, two of these latter parts shall be given to the two daughters, and the rest shall be taken by the son.—(b) But in a case where the man has left one son of the Brāhmaṇa wife and one daughter of the Kṣatriya wife,—the father’s property shall be divided into seven parts (‘four shares’ accruing to the Brāhmaṇa son and ‘three shares’ to the Kṣatriya son), if there be one, the ‘three shares’ (accruing to the Kṣatriya son) shall be divided into four parts, one of these four parts shall be given to the Kṣatriya daughter, the rest of the property going to the Brāhmaṇa son; where there are two Brāhmaṇa sons and one Kṣatriya daughter the father’s property is to be divided into eleven parts (4 shares for each of the Brāhmaṇa sons and three for the Kṣatriya if there be one), and the three parts (accruing to the Kṣatriya son) being divided into four parts, one of these four parts shall go to the Kṣatriya daughter, and the rest of the property shall be divided between the two Brāhmaṇa sons. On the same principle is partition to proceed when there are brothers of different castes or sisters in varying numbers; such is the explanation provided by Medhātithi, and approved by Vijñāneśwara also;—Bhāruci on the other hand holds that the ‘fourth share’ only stands for ‘such amount as may be necessary for her marriage,’ and that therefore unmarried girls have no right to the inheritance as such. This same view has been held also by the author of the Candrikā,—of these two views, people may accept the one that appears to be the most reasonable.

It is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, p. 36a);—in Vivādacintāmani (Calcutta, p. 134), which says that the meaning is that ‘each daughter should receive the fourth part of what forms the share of a son of the same caste as himself,’ and adds that stress is not meant to be laid upon the ‘fourth part,’ what is meant is that so much should be given to her as would suffice for her marriage;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 179b), which says that this does not mean that ‘in the case of either form of partition among the brothers, each brother should give to the sister a fourth part of his share’; as, if there were so, if there are several brothers to a single sister, she would have a very large property,—or if there were a single brother to many sisters, he would have nothing left for himself;—all therefore that is meant is that the brother should give to the sisters just enough to suffice for her marriage—so says the Vivādaratnākara, the Vivādacintāmaṇi and the rest;—this is not right; as the text is clear on the point that by not giving to the sister the fourth part of his share, the brother incurs a sin which is quite different from that incurred in not providing for her marriage; the right explanation is that which has been provided by Medhātithi and the Mitākṣarā. (It then proceeds to quote these).

It is quoted by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 114), which says that the root ‘dā’ used makes it clear that the sisters have no claims over the property.

This verse is quoted in Mitālṣarā (2. 119), to the effect that of the animals mentioned, if an odd one remains after partition, it is to be given to the qldest brother;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 686), to the same effect;—in Aparārka (p. 723), which explains ‘viṣamam’ as a number different from (not a multiple of) the number of brothers;—in Vivādaratnākara (p. 498), which says that the odd animals are not to be partitioned by being sold and the value divided, they should be taken by the eldest brother;—and in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 57).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Viṣṇu (18.35).—‘Unmarried daughters shall receive shares proportionate to the sons’ shares.’

Yājñavalkya (2.124).—‘The brothers who have already had their sacramental rites performed shall perform the sacraments for those brothers and sisters whose sacraments have not been performed,—after each of them has given to the sister the fourth part of their share.’

Nārada (13.13).—‘The rest shall take equal shares; and so shall an unmarried sister.’

Do. (13.33-34).—‘Those brothers and sisters for whom the sacraments have not been performed by their father, must have them performed by their elder brothers, who shall defray the expenses from the paternal property. Or, if no paternal property is left, the rites shall be performed for those by the brothers previously initiated contributing the required funds from their own portions.’

Vyāsa (Aparārka, p. 731).—‘Those sons and daughters that have not had their sacraments performed by the father shall have them performed by their elder brothers, who have already had their sacraments performed, out of the paternal property.’

Kātyāyana (Vivādaratnākara, p. 494).—‘For unmarried daughters, the fourth part of the property has been ordained, the other three parts being for the sons.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do., p. 495).—‘When the father's estate is being divided, the unmarried daughter shall receive out of the estate, provision for her ornaments, marriage and dowry.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 33).—‘Among the brothers, those that are not settled in life shall receive the expenses of settling, and the unmarried sisters, the expenses for their marriage,—from those brothers that are already settled in life.’

Brhaṣpati (25.21).—‘Should thore be younger brothers whose initiation has not been performed, they must be initiated by the other brothers; the expenses being defrayed out of the property inherited from the father.’